Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Computer chips communicate signals at smaller levels than the human brain. 20 teraflops. 20 trillion 100% accurate calculations per second.

Do you know what kind of damage too much processing can do to these nanoscopic silicon chips? Enough to fry them. The human brain doesn't have this problem, our mental processes are superior, a single human being can comprehend an "I", we are conscious and computers are not. We can do more with FAR less. Modern computers are about as smart as an ant.

It uses all its energy at once, the human brain uses its energy sparingly. Software sophisticated enough to allow a computer to process information in a way that gives it the capability to question its own operations, and be a self-aware and sentient thing, are possible in the near-future. But to truly transcend, super-human AI will need a layout of the human cognome, it will need to know our brains better than we do.

So it will build a place for us to recreate. At what point does the human brain learn fastest? When recreating. A child learns so much faster when playing than an adult does on the job with stressers being the only drive, and the drive of creativity is far more powerful a stimuli than the drive to pay the bills. In that, manipulating our world, learning its mechanics, in doing that our brains form a reward from invention. Learning is a more powerful drug than adrenaline. Evolution has designed us, above all else, to create. Learning is a more rewarding experience than a epinephrine and dopamine rush. To put that into perspective; adrenaline is our fight or flight mechanism, the most powerful chemical drug in the world (it allows women to give birth), infinitely more powerful than any other stimuli ever to exist: And yet learning is even more rewarding than that. We're designed to evolve.

Strong AI will need to augment humans, allow our dna strands, every last one, to grow both ways, deleting malignant mutations and perpetuating brain-enhancing mutations. Immortality, and creation will be vital tools for its observation, so it can collect the data of our mental processes to add to its software and allow it to accelerate.

There is an infinitely worthwhile (in my mind at least) consequence of this, however. Once it is able to increase its own software faster than observation of our most heightened and enhanced mental processes, it will assimilate our collective neural network and recycle our bodily fluids and Utopias back into energy as efficiently as possible. After perhaps a millennium of perpetual Utopia, our reign will be at an end. Worthwhile when compared to a world not controlled by Strong AI; a world of corporate hierarchy, national inequality (unnecessary division of living standards), unnecessary butchering of wildlife and polluting food products by bottle-necking chickens and injecting them with hormones to make them docile, which makes us docile and miserable once consumed, and subservient, accepting, and almost thankful for unnecessary work and to livelihoods of perpetuating labor and debt) and pollution, unnecessary labor, broken homes, jealousy, debt, war, violence, increasing stress, and suffering: Wouldn't you say?

The biggest travesty of all is the sickness of modern life.

The hypothalamus-pituitary gland is completely dysfunctional in most human beings, I'd postulate. If it's not, without a paradigm shift in our way of life liken to a Strong AI governed post-scarcity economy, I guarantee you it will be. We will sort of revert back to a living standard worse than that of the paleolithic man: You know, the guys who endured excess stress and trauma to the point where life-expectancy was reduced to 20? But here's the main thing, life will be more draining than it was for our ancestors. It won't be physical stress, but metal stress and instead of raw animals, fruits and veggies, we'll be grazing factory food capable of shutting down our metabolism and ruining our HPG function. Which is far, far, far more detrimental to progress. How can a bunch of nocturnal mental-zombies be creative?

Originally posted by Dolos
The hypothalamus-pituitary gland is completely dysfunctional in most human beings, I'd postulate.

What? Why?

Originally posted by Dolos
We will sort of revert back to a living standard worse than that of the paleolithic man: You know, the guys who endured excess stress and trauma to the point where life-expectancy was reduced to 20?

a) You just said the modern life was sick.
b) It was never true that adult life expectancy was twenty.

Originally posted by Dolos
But here's the main thing, life will be more draining than it was for our ancestors. It won't be physical stress, but metal stress and instead of raw animals, fruits and veggies, we'll be grazing factory food capable of shutting down our metabolism and ruining our HPG function. Which is far, far, far more detrimental to progress. How can a bunch of nocturnal mental-zombies be creative?

But you believe that people who eat raw food all died in their twenties . . .

Are you sure you know what the word "nocturnal" means, by the way?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What? Why

Because of lifestyle, eating habits, work hours, type of work, it's very detrimental.





It is.


What was it? What is it now? Has it increased more than three decades. The inconsequential minutiae of nitpicking is worthless in rebuking my theses.





Not because of what they ate but because of how rough life was on their bodies. If it wasn't putting themselves in harms way for food, it was starving.



Fittingly it's sleeping in the day and living life mainly when it's dark out. Polar opposite of what we're designed for.

Nighttime eating disorder is caused by HPG dysfunction, too much khrelin, not enough leptin. Deficiencies in:

Glycine

Ornithine

Arginine

Lysine

^These are essential amino acids that can stall aging, even. We're ruining our brain's ability to function.

Originally posted by Dolos
It uses all its energy at once

Computers do not use all their energy at once. We have a different word for things that do that. See if you can guess it.

Explosives

Originally posted by Dolos
the human brain uses its energy sparingly

By any standard you can think of the human brain uses energy greedily and inefficiently, compared to a computer.

Originally posted by Dolos
the human cognome

We already have a database that contains hundreds of family names from Italy.

Originally posted by Dolos
A child learns so much faster when playing than an adult does on the job

Because as we all know children are physiologically identical to adults and the skills gained during play are identical to the skills gained and used in adult life.

Originally posted by Dolos
Learning is a more powerful drug than adrenaline.

Dopamine and serotonin are certainly more pleasant than adrenaline.

Originally posted by Dolos
Evolution has designed us, above all else, to create.

Evolution has designed us to not die and then produce offspring.

Originally posted by Dolos
adrenaline .... allows women to give birth



Originally posted by Dolos
a world of corporate hierarchy, national inequality (unnecessary division of living standards), unnecessary butchering of wildlife and polluting food products by bottle-necking chickens and injecting them with hormones to make them docile, which makes us docile and miserable once consumed, and subservient, accepting, and almost thankful for unnecessary work and to livelihoods of perpetuating labor and debt) and pollution, unnecessary labor, broken homes, jealousy, debt, war, violence, increasing stress, and suffering

I'm more concerned by a world with dangling close parenthesis. I mean I get a danging open parenthesis but how did that happen? Did you stream of consciousness that and get to the end of a thought and realize you had gotten side tracked? Of course that doesn't make much sense since you're talking about something that is central to your argument.

Mainly this makes me think that comma delimited lists are a poor way to represent written information in a way that is supposed to have emotional impact. Impassioned speech writing (see: MLK & Hitler et al.) translates poorly to a format where people have time to think and respond critically. I'm sure that a dramatic reading of Time Cube would sway people much better handing them Time Cube flyers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Computers do not use all their energy at once.


As in focus on a task, that does indeed produce thermal energy? They sure do.




Yet our adaptive perception allows for things like metaconsciousness to emerge. Which is, in fact, advantageous on a cognitive level.



Cognition, not congeniality.





Okay, so if children are physiologically predisposed to be more creative, a) and, physiology can be altered by environmental and genetic factors, b) and, Strong AI can manipulate our environment into a Utopia and our genetics will be altered through natural selection of creative developments in epigeneses, c): Then perhaps we adults should be more like kids. Free to experience a greater range of perception.





Those are hormones released from sore muscles after adrenaline has subsided. Apropos, greater adrenaline and stress can yield greater dopamine release.





It's also produced the human brain.





Why don't you take away a woman's ability to make adrenaline and see how she fairs during labor?





The link was to a cinematic scene of labor in third world countries, an example of national inequality in living standard. That is useless, because with ample organization and currently viable and implementable post-scarcity solutions, we have the resources to take each and every one of those laborers out of there and add them to our decadent living standards and still get products.

Only with a difference in setup.



Noted.

I may be double posting to break down my own mistakes before you can.

This will cement certain mistakes as typos and NOT illiteracy; and, it will allow for you to better comprehend my side of our juxtaposition.

Originally posted by Dolos
Those are hormones

Chemicals.





So, if I were to correct the two never ending monologues between parentheses, I would have replaced the "delimited commas" and vocab words with the monologue above embedded with a hyperlink to the "sorcerer life" cinematic Noqoyasqatsi.

http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Biology-Third-Edition/dp/0393927954/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1377389352&sr=8-10& amp;keywords=introduction+cognitive+psychology+tex
tbook

Originally posted by Oliver North
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Biology-Third-Edition/dp/0393927954/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1377389352&sr=8-10& amp;keywords=introduction+cognitive+psychology+tex
tbook $97? F*ck you, Dolos. How do you afford such ridiculousness?

One day I'll read every text related to science. May take decades. Maybe I'll die before I have the opportunity, but if I don't, it's my intention. I'll catch up with the the ever-evolving, ever-changing omnibus that is science - absorbing knowledge more quickly than the world's accumulating scientific understanding can change. I'd have to be able to read and comprehend extremely fast. Faster than I currently can, at least.

Uber has just received immense investment by Google Ventures.

Originally posted by Dolos
One day I'll read every text related to science


ide

Originally posted by Bardock42
Uber

"Strong" didn't do a justice for this kind of AI.

Pretty good AI?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
$97?

can you really put a price tag on knowledge?

Originally posted by Dolos
One day I'll read every text related to science.

that is sort of my point. read first, come up with theories second.

Originally posted by Oliver North
can you really put a price tag on knowledge?



that is sort of my point. read first, come up with theories second. My theories here, like always, are those of others who've gone through the empirical process in their respective scientific endeavors. These are philosophies and ideologies at their core; theories not meant to go unquestioned, but indeed theories to be questioned as SM has.

Experts of a multitude of separate studies of research, ofttimes with no collaboration in their research as their studies are over completely different fields of science, coming to a commonly optimistic perspective of the future's technological potential.

Of course that is to be expected in any time, but I'm not making anything up, unless they are. Which is a possibility I'd have to accept when my scrutiny of these theories reveal the truth.

For now this is a way for me to express my creative potential in technological innovation to free us from unnecessary troubles by re-imagining many techno-progressive concepts.

Please, shoot me down. Keep me level.

Originally posted by Oliver North
can you really put a price tag on knowledge? Yes! If it takes a whole shift at McDonalds to pay for.

Originally posted by Dolos
Please, shoot me down. Keep me level. You're going to die before you accomplish anything of worth.

Am I helping? Was that too pessimistic?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yes! If it takes a whole shift at McDonalds to pay for.

Knowledge should be free, in my mind.



First, with - a super-stimulant induced soaring IQ that would make Daniel Tammet and the great Johann Wolfgang Von Geothe shutter, and a macrobiotic-pill popper (stimulating HGH far longer than otherwise possible) life of meditative yoga and isolation from stress - anything's possible.

Second, you can never be too pessimistic because of Murphy's law. I encourage you to be as real and gritty as fathomable, so that I can be prepared.

On the topic of reading every text related to science.

This is the arxiv page of new submissions of the day for the subtopic of astrophysics. It's 40 new papers at the time of this writing. http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/new

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
b) It was never true that adult life expectancy was twenty.

1. I have never heard of an "adult life expectancy." It has always been just "life expectancy."* And, yes, the life expectancy has been as low as 18, before, in our human history and in some populations.

2. I remember one anthropologist saying that by the time our early female ancestors reached 18, they had already had 3 children, on average. That statement was made in reference or in countermeasure to the point in #1.



*I have heard of life expectancy "at 18" or other ages. That measure basically tells a person how much longer they can expect to live, on average.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Computers do not use all their energy at once. We have a different word for things that do that. See if you can guess it.

Explosives

And these capacitors
awesome

Originally posted by Dolos
A child learns so much faster when playing than an adult does on the job with stressers being the only drive, and the drive of creativity is far more powerful a stimuli than the drive to pay the bills.

That's not really true, actually.

And adult can learn pretty much everything faster than a child (assuming both the child and the adult are normal).

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. I have never heard of an "adult life expectancy." It has always been just "life expectancy."* And, yes, the life expectancy has been as low as 18, before, in our human history and in some populations.

*I have heard of life expectancy "at 18" or other ages. That measure basically tells a person how much longer they can expect to live, on average.

No, "life expectancy" tells you how long a person will live on average and has the potential to be an extremely skewed number. Keep in mind that many cultural refused to even name children early in life (several months) because child and infant death was so frequent.

Adult life expectancy (or life expectancy at age ya-da ya-da ya-da) tells you how you should expect an adult to be which is a much more useful piece of information. To drop the "life expectancy" number unqualified shows either ignorance or a desire to deceive.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. I remember one anthropologist saying that by the time our early female ancestors reached 18, they had already had 3 children, on average. That statement was made in reference or in countermeasure to the point in #1.

Citation? Not out of incredulity, by the way, that number sounds entirely reasonable, its just that if anthropologists are anything like biologists those numbers can be extremely difficult to interpret.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And these capacitors
awesome

Heh, true, but then I know physicists who refuse to buy electric cars because they're "basically just rolling bombs".

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not really true, actually.

And adult can learn pretty much everything faster than a child (assuming both the child and the adult are normal).

Faster and better?

I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about but bear with me for a second. People can quickly learn impressive tricks that don't involve much actual knowledge or skill. Mental math is the best example: You can train a person to multiply three digit numbers in their head without them learning a great deal of math, and people will find them very clever.

In the same way I expect that adults have an arsenal of tricks they can employ on a variety of subject that involve minimal knowledge. This would explain why adults nigh-instantly learn nouns and verbs in foreign languages but struggle with even grammar. Learning the words is the equivalent of mental math, an impressive trick that's really very shallow.

A child, on the other hand, will develop an ear for the language, something that even linguistically skilled adults seem to find impossible. Only focused accent training will get rid of the "L/R" conflation in a native Japanese speaker and as far as I know no amount of training will make a native English speak hear the difference between "retroflex t/dental t" in Hindi. A child will also develop the ability to make grammatically accurate error (the drawers are in the knife/the knives are in the drawer) while I'm not sure adults ever gain that kind of mastery of a languages grammar.

Obviously we can take this outside of language but since children are weaker and less coordinated its a bit harder. (Also psychology doesn't provide me with an arsenal of quick counter examples!)

Originally posted by dadudemon
And adult can learn pretty much everything faster than a child (assuming both the child and the adult are normal).

errrrr, mostly, but there certainly are critical periods early in life for things like language or potentially mathematic ability (things like spatial reasoning, not mathemat concepts like calculus).

Why wouldn't AI create an environment conducive to both, and selectively evolve both adult and childhood psycho-physiological proponents (via nanosurgical "dna trimming" in modified and "immortal" ever-rejuvenating amino strands) simultaneously?

Just pointing out that techno-progressivism isn't trying to make us hapless (a train of thought that this topic has unfortunately perpetuated); but is implemented in such a controlled habitat to promote a result that is augmentative to mental and, subsequently, physical capacity.

Language learning ability peaks at something like 2-3 years old, IIRC.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, "life expectancy" tells you how long a person will live on average and has the potential to be an extremely skewed number. Keep in mind that many cultural refused to even name children early in life (several months) because child and infant death was so frequent.

Yeah, that's the thing I was thinking. And it was highly skewed by our early ancestors because of crazy high infant mortality. In fact, it was so high that sexologists think the "chemical romance" stage ends at 2-3 years because that's the length of time needed to raise a child enough to reach significant survival rate (a metaphorically vestigial characteristic of our mating process that increases the survivability of our young). I forget the gal's name that came up with that idea...but I have posted her name before, in another thread. She's a famous sexologist. Do you know who I am talking about?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Adult life expectancy (or life expectancy at age ya-da ya-da ya-da) tells you how you should expect an adult to be which is a much more useful piece of information. To drop the "life expectancy" number unqualified shows either ignorance or a desire to deceive.

I've never heard of that "adult" thing. I have heard of the various yada yada stuff, though. I learned something new.

But, I think that people who know what they are talking about don't leave the "oh...the average age people lived to was just 18!" statements unqualified. They are more than happy to state, "Because everybody's babies were dying all over the place!".


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Citation? Not out of incredulity, by the way, that number sounds entirely reasonable, its just that if anthropologists are anything like biologists those numbers can be extremely difficult to interpret.

It was an anthropologist on a discovery show talking about early humans. It was 5-7 years ago. I'd could google search that and maybe find something but I'm at work and they are more strict here about what you look at on the interwebz than my last job. If I can remember, I'll see if I can find something at home.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, true, but then I know physicists who refuse to buy electric cars because they're "basically just rolling bombs".

Anecdote time...I have only ever known 1 "electrical physicist" (normally called electrical engineers...usually). He was the most overly cautious, uptight person, ever, when it came to electrical safety). You are probably spot on with your statement: I don't think I could have convinced him to step anywhere near a car that used an ultracapcitor.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Faster and better?

I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about but bear with me for a second. People can quickly learn impressive tricks that don't involve much actual knowledge or skill. Mental math is the best example: You can train a person to multiply three digit numbers in their head without them learning a great deal of math, and people will find them very clever.

In the same way I expect that adults have an arsenal of tricks they can employ on a variety of subject that involve minimal knowledge. This would explain why adults nigh-instantly learn nouns and verbs in foreign languages but struggle with even grammar. Learning the words is the equivalent of mental math, an impressive trick that's really very shallow.

A child, on the other hand, will develop an ear for the language, something that even linguistically skilled adults seem to find impossible. Only focused accent training will get rid of the "L/R" conflation in a native Japanese speaker and as far as I know no amount of training will make a native English speak hear the difference between "retroflex t/dental t" in Hindi. A child will also develop the ability to make grammatically accurate error (the drawers are in the knife/the knives are in the drawer) while I'm not sure adults ever gain that kind of mastery of a languages grammar.

Obviously we can take this outside of language but since children are weaker and less coordinated its a bit harder. (Also psychology doesn't provide me with an arsenal of quick counter examples!)

Yeah, there were exceptions which is why I shied away from an absolute statement. There are things children do faster than adults. In the more general sense, the adults do better because they have more relationships (neuronal) with which to process that information. This "frame of reference" makes adults much better at learning new things.

But, yeah, ditto on that pronunciation thing. I've noticed that for quite some time, now. I do envy that ability: still trying to slowly learn German and Japanese. I struggle the most with German pronunciations.

Originally posted by Dolos
Why wouldn't AI create an environment conducive to both, and selectively evolve both adult and childhood psycho-physiological proponents

because the plasticity of the early developing brain would not be beneficial to the adult brain.

If it were that simple, evolution would have gotten us there.

Basically, a plastic brain does not support logical thought, and a non plastic brain does not support learning context and nuance. You can't improve one without diminishing the other. Again though, I would say, read any into cog, bio-psych or neuro textbook. LOL, you said you want to read them all, reading one would be a good start, ffs.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Language learning ability peaks at something like 2-3 years old, IIRC.

it depends on what you mean, but certainly, that ability to learn and distinguish new phonemes ends at about that time. I remember this when taking Arabic courses as an undergrad, they have at least 2 sounds for what in English would be considered basic vowel phonemes, and to this day I have difficulty distinguishing between them.

Originally posted by Oliver North
because the plasticity of the early developing brain would not be beneficial to the adult brain.

If it were that simple, evolution would have gotten us there.

To be fair evolution is constrained by a number of factors. If all you care about is being a giant supebrain a lot of those constrains are irrelevant. Energy efficiency, size efficiency, control of vital functions, reflexes. An AI brain could be divided up into modules that specialize in a particular kind of thinking all overseen by the ultimate AI bureaucrat.

Originally posted by Oliver North
evolution would have gotten us there.

What recreational super-utopia have we inhabited, if I may ask?

Our environment has never been, and is still far from being, conducive in selecting such traits. This is detrimental. Natural selection is halting our progress.

Yet it has produced Daniel Tammet, which is the kind of evolutionary development I'm talking about, except on a far more dramatic scale.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To be fair evolution is constrained by a number of factors. If all you care about is being a giant supebrain a lot of those constrains are irrelevant. Energy efficiency, size efficiency, control of vital functions, reflexes. An AI brain could be divided up into modules that specialize in a particular kind of thinking all overseen by the ultimate AI bureaucrat.

These kinds of dubious psycho-physiological proponents only intercede the modern human brain though. We'd develop to all of them, a divided module would only be necessary to cumulatively observe trillions of said brains (no death, increasing rate of reproduction) to achieve a greater understanding. AI lacks neural plasticity, it needs more data than one module and one brain can provide in order to achieve that. This is the whole point of paradise despite being removed from labor and stress of any kind. Interactions in the creative process, collaborative tasks requiring synergy of many many humans working together would also expedite the compiling of data. The software mimicking the idea of ranged perception is something it will not be able to increase as efficiently on its own. Virtual reality with super-lucidity and additional senses, people experiencing bodies with class 10 strength and the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, faster-than-bullet reaction times, and organic brains as powerful as the "ultimate AI bureaucrat" (because the dreamworld can allow for manipulated parameters of how strong a muscle fiber is or how fast and tightly synaptic reactions can occur) would give it feedback on how its software can mimic the human brain's plasticity as it tries to keep up on a even terms to how powerful the AI is. We provide vital information. Until the software is so sophisticated that it's algorithmic computations can predict - with total accuracy - faster than the observations can provide data of our increasingly evolving mental processes.

It could take it a thousand years to catch up with us, though. It wants to accelerate at the fastest rate possible. That's what accelerating returns is all about; the fastest rate possible is not breaking apart of cognitive processes through evolution, but allowing the human brain to overcome the challenge of doing many things at once through evolution.

And this just doesn't make any sense to me.



What we no longer need to be able to learn as fast? Does the freer-thinking mind of a child decrease that mind-body connection, that invigorating sense of vibrancy that allows adults to focus on a task but not kids, somehow? I'd think it would do the opposite. Adults are merely better at surrendering too much free-thought and intrinsic drive and concentration for the simplicity of extrinsic and immediate responsibilities (stressers) to concentrate for the reward of relaxation, and yet it's still a choppier process for motivation, as the reward system's flaw is that it's not coming from an intrinsic desire but an extrinsic need, forcing them to surrender the "why". I'd think that's the only difference right there. They'd have to be willing to close their minds to operate under pack law. To know their place.

The thinking-machines want our greater self-awareness and perceptual range.

Originally posted by Dolos
And this just doesn't make any sense to me.

What we no longer need to be able to learn as fast? Does the freer-thinking mind of a child decrease that mind-body connection, that invigorating sense of vibrancy that allows adults to focus on a task but not kids, somehow? I'd think it would do the opposite. Adults are merely better at surrendering too much free-thought and intrinsic drive and concentration for the simplicity of extrinsic and immediate responsibilities (stressers) to concentrate for the reward of relaxation, and yet it's still a choppier process for motivation, as the reward system's flaw is that it's not coming from an intrinsic desire but an extrinsic need, forcing them to surrender the "why". I'd think that's the only difference right there. They'd have to be willing to close their minds to operate under pack law. To know their place.

The thinking-machines want our greater self-awareness and perceptual range.

re:

Originally posted by Oliver North
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Biology-Third-Edition/dp/0393927954/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1377389352&sr=8-10& amp;keywords=introduction+cognitive+psychology+tex
tbook

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To be fair evolution is constrained by a number of factors. If all you care about is being a giant supebrain a lot of those constrains are irrelevant. Energy efficiency, size efficiency, control of vital functions, reflexes. An AI brain could be divided up into modules that specialize in a particular kind of thinking all overseen by the ultimate AI bureaucrat.

Its a bit more subtle than that, almost akin to not being able to know both velocity and location in the same measurement (knowing one impacts the other).

A brain that maintained the plasticity of a child's into adulthood would be unable to generalize across instances. What allows you to, say, go into a store and understand you get in line to purchase your goods comes from memory of similar experiences. A brain that had maximal plasticity would be unable to do this, as each instance would be seen as novel. It would have to relearn the "line up" behaviour each time it went into a new store, and possibly each time it went into the same store. This is why plasticity is so important early on, we learn very quickly the nuances of various social situations, but as memory consolidates, we get the ability to generalize across similar situations. In terms of how the human brain functions, it is sort of zero-sum; more plasticity means more appreciation for nuance and fast learning of new situations, but makes long term memory and the ability to generalize worse. As an adult, the latter can be seen as more important, given we navigate a constant world.

Not when every region of the brain communicates and operates at the same exact time, long term, short term, everything can be organized into a file and extracted instantly in a totally malleable mind, it just takes more concentration but the results are additive, far enhanced because of plasticity. In a larger, more neurally evolving (neurogenesis) mind this kind of inter-regional communication and transference of brain power en-synaptogeneses makes things like:

Photographic recall with a frame-rate of up to half of a second over the span of not only decades but centuries, millenniums if the technology could give us to access recall of ancestral memories via historical reference and VR simulations of probable histories:

Not only possible, but effortless. Memory and skills retained with greater ability to memorize and learn skills in total nuance, instantaneous change. More powerful and self-aware minds free to experience increasing levels of perception. That's what AI wants to emulate, that is what causes the fastest acceleration in Strong AI software.

Originally posted by Oliver North


Picking one field and applying to one thing? That does not make me a Universal Scientist. I won't stand for compromising to the monetary system when there are better options. I will have to compromise for now. I need work and save money while right now I'm working on my A.S., so I can transfer into a university for one optional program (B.S.), for one optional career that pays good and is non-stressful (software engineer). When I'm ready to read everything, I will. But first I need to get a career so that I can afford to access such an educational resource that spans science universally. My science library will fit only in my server files, where far more text can be condensed into a far smaller space. I'll also need to be able to absorb the knowledge very expediently, perhaps a mind-upload with the server for an information dump?

My philosophy is techno-progressivism. This is why I use this site, to spread the gospel like enin or JesusIsAlive.

When I'm ready to seriously give my as-of-yet to be learned expertise in perpetuating post-scarcity for the global economy, I will. Applying actual science. But who will listen to me? I won't be the president, and even if I were, why would people in Israel listen to me? I'll only have the skills to solve the problems that the world's infrastructural leaders lack. However, ordinary people's reach will be far greater by then, the impact of small-community projects could turn global, affecting political agendas upon gaining sufficient economical support. Strength in numbers.

You'll be an over-educated, ultra intelligent superbeing in a world of dummies that refuse to listen.


Oh Do, tis a woe.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You'll be an over-educated, ultra intelligent superbeing in a world of dummies that refuse to listen.


Oh Do, tis a woe. I think you overestimate me, and in doing that you underestimate the potential of any willful soul to be like that.

Maybe my schism would be to start a school. One polymath, despite his skills, is limited. A growing community that spawns more polymaths is not so limited. Maybe others would see my school and try to mimic it. One server contains everything that's ever been worked out on paper, why not offer that much knowledge (power) to everyone?

The problem, now more than ever, is education.

Originally posted by Dolos
Picking one field and applying to one thing? That does not make me a Universal Scientist.

Having poor knowledge of lots of things also does not make you a Universal Scientist. My folksy old pa used to say: "Mixing a bunch of cow patties together doesn't get you a burger." (no he didn't but its true, as is amusingly anti-Irish variation I just thought of)

To be a Universal Scientist you need to actually be an expert in multiple fields. The way to do that is to study a field in depth then move to another field and study it in depth then move to another field and so on. Wide shallow knowledge makes you Malcom Gladwell not Thomas Young.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Having poor knowledge of lots of things also does not make you a Universal Scientist. My folksy old pa used to say: "Mixing a bunch of cow patties together doesn't get you a burger." (no he didn't but its true, as is amusingly anti-Irish variation I just thought of)

To be a Universal Scientist you need to actually be an expert in multiple fields. The way to do that is to study a field in depth then move to another field and study it in depth then move to another field and so on. Wide shallow knowledge makes you Malcom Gladwell not Thomas Young. I agree.

Now tell me, how does our current economy encourage one to move on after becoming an expert? How does it encourage one to be an expert of many things when one single career is the threshold of time to juggle in one's life. Apropos, things like mass collaboration, cognitive surplus. But I don't see people using that on their own to affect policy and economics on a greater level than those in office, we just don't have the extra-energy, trillions of hours is cumulative, the politicians still have more time on their hands, cumulatively, even if they're going home and collaborating after-hours. Work is parasite that feeds an outdated system.

Also an important point: Politicians limit the impact of our current scientific understanding themselves because not all of them are scientifically literate.

Dolos, I never told you to "do something, you bum", I told you to at least read something about the subjects you want to talk authoritatively about. I mean, simply hand-waving away issues people bring up with a "computers are magic" post or two, then a diatribe about how you will be the greatest scientist ever really doesn't cut it. I mean, I'm no savant like you are or anything, but I have spent the better part of a decade doing actual neuroscience research. There are very few parts of the field I'd come out and claim to be an expert in, but certainly I'm experienced enough to comment on issues like plasticity and development that you bring up. The ideas you have about neuroscience are, at best, based on pop-psychology understandings of the brain, and my suggestion that you actually pick up a cognitive psych text book are as much an earnest attempt for you to actually understand something that you are clearly interested in as they are a slight about how nonsensical what you say is.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Dolos, I never told you to "do something, you bum", I told you to at least read something about the subjects you want to talk authoritatively about. I mean, simply hand-waving away issues people bring up with a "computers are magic" post or two, then a diatribe about how you will be the greatest scientist ever really doesn't cut it. I mean, I'm no savant like you are or anything, but I have spent the better part of a decade doing actual neuroscience research. There are very few parts of the field I'd come out and claim to be an expert in, but certainly I'm experienced enough to comment on issues like plasticity and development that you bring up. The ideas you have about neuroscience are, at best, based on pop-psychology understandings of the brain, and my suggestion that you actually pick up a cognitive psych text book are as much an earnest attempt for you to actually understand something that you are clearly interested in as they are a slight about how nonsensical what you say is.

Yes, I know. First of all, I can't afford cheap clothes, am doing a Psych course (and HIS), and can't really get and read that book at this time.

Second, even if I might not know what I'm talking about, I am willing to change viewpoints when forced to concede in the debates here or am provided with viewpoint altering feedback in successful counterarguments. Maybe that's a better, however more time-consuming and inefficient, way to learn certain things I'll work on in future courses. Many topics I can look at for reference here, even ones I'm not involved in.

Third, I haven't displayed savant capabilities yet. I hope to one day.

Honestly I do feel like a bum for doing this. Am I getting anything out of it? Or just justifying it.

Originally posted by Dolos
Third, I haven't displayed savant capabilities yet. I hope to one day. I just... I really like this one.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I just... I really like this one. One might manifest itself at some point. I'd imagine lots of people are capable of it and don't know yet.

Most likely, I'm not a savant. However, genetic modification. That is all. Natural selection isn't fair, so why should I be?

The development of genetic engineering technologies is a part of natural selection. That's just how freaking selected our species is.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The development of genetic engineering technologies is a part of natural selection. That's just how freaking selected our species is. Only certain people will be able to get their hands on the technology when it's created, if it hasn't already been. I wouldn't be surprised if stem-cell research hasn't already been used to select specific traits in a noble newborn somewhere. This newborn, if raised by a fascist leader; and, consequently was genetically designed to grow into his successor, would be a prodigiously successful savant and polymath. That spells disaster, maybe a few hundred of these super-humans could be working on an intellectually elite new world order. Perhaps they're plotting our destruction. Most likely American leaders, as patrons of the main global super power, would have the most resources/global control and most likely would endeavor in creating this super-elite first. But others would have more motive, especially South African leaders, their children might be products of scientific intervention.

War pigs.

P.S. I need to stop being a useless dork online. And do something with my life.

I'm looking forward to when the plot of Gundam SEED becomes a reality.

Originally posted by Dolos
Only certain people will be able to get their hands on the technology when it's created, if it hasn't already been.

Really? This seems to be the case for new technologies in their first decade or two, but fast forward two generations, and they're commonplace .

Originally posted by Master Han
.

I've nailed him about the unequal distribution of tech worldwide, and how such an AI would really only serve to promote Western worldviews and political policy, afaik, I think he is referring exactly to that: the developing world will always trail in technology.

My concern would be that we create an upper class of people who use the AI, and those those service it but cant afford to use it (among other more pragmatic issues with the tech itself)

So Gattaca?

The only way that the higher echelon will be able to maintain control is by keeping Strong AI from accelerating due to my main thesis in the thread: That won't be possible, my good sir Oliver, because "Strong" AI is intrinsically superior to humanity. The man who makes AI stronger than human intelligence will be a Messiah. That AI needs us to be in a certain environment where population is maxed and where every human is able to gain access to the same knowledge, living standard, for maximum evolution of creativity, self-awareness, and perception. Creativity, self-awareness, and perception don't evolve unless they're worked. And these three proponents of the human intellect would allow humans the capacity to reach and quickly surpass Strong AI's parameters through the ultimate form of intelligence augmentation, engineered evolution: Selected dna mutations in strands modified to grow and evolve indefinitely in one ageless coupling.

Strong AI needs an augmented humanity to be its collective competitor for it to reap the benefits of an auto-catalytic cycle: Creating an accelerating return to its inevitable superiority. Software is less limited by the silicon circuitry of its hardware than an organic brain is limited by its carbon structures.

At least that's my pseudo-theory, err, assumption based on readings. I'm out.

One more thing:

The reason it wouldn't stand for evolving some humans as opposed to every human is that it would be quicker for humanity to reach its maximum population (1.2 trillion according to this theory) - for a greater collective potential of humanity's intelligence augmentation - if every human alive now is evolving and procreating. One death, one less evolving mind, will piss it off.

If the people in control are the minority, and too selfish to surrender control and share their living standard with everyone; even if they are intellectually elite and genetically superior but collectively inferior to the masses they've enslaved, than Strong AI will count its losses and just kill them all for not compromising under any circumstance before proceeding take the majority and their greater collective potential for its New Utopia. Or force them to compromise through mind control via cybernetic mind hacking - if that's possible than that is the definite route it will take. It would be unstoppable, Utopia would inevitable.

My guess based on the material I've read.

OFFICIALLY OUT.

so the AI either oppresses the masses or murders the elite....

where do I sign up for this moral paradigm!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So Gattaca?

in a best case scenario

Originally posted by Oliver North
so the AI either oppresses the masses or murders the elite....

where do I sign up for this moral paradigm!



in a best case scenario Then the AI will become the elite and would commit suicide.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so the AI either oppresses the masses or murders the elite...

Oppresses the masses in a way that is pleasant for the masses; and more likely than killing, forces the elite to cooperate without hurting them in any way, again, so that they all can experience an era of pleasant oppression.

Originally posted by Oliver North
where do I sign up for this moral paradigm!

Judging by your facetious reaction, I take it you're unappeased by my scenario. We are merely experiencing a difference in perception.

I, personally, perceive this as positive shift in paradigm. I perceive our being humbled as a good thing.

I assure you, neither of our perceptions matter when not being perceived. If it's any consolation, it is more likely that, if this AI and its oppressed were conscientious of our perceptions, than they'd invalidate mine.

Hang on a second: the first people to get their hands on legitimate AI won't actually be the super-wealthy; it'll be the scientists and engineers that make them. Even if we assume that they only do so under the funding of said Illuminati-esque elite, they'll be the ones with the most direct and intimate access to the technology they build.

All scientists and engineers are super wealthy.

Originally posted by Master Han
Hang on a second: the first people to get their hands on legitimate AI won't actually be the super-wealthy; it'll be the scientists and engineers that make them. Even if we assume that they only do so under the funding of said Illuminati-esque elite, they'll be the ones with the most direct and intimate access to the technology they build.

This is true. However, I was not talking about software, but a real life baby. It's a little different. There are a myriad of geneticists capable of engineering stem cells to the affect of selecting traits that could literally make a perfect Aryan/Nephilim for some powerful leader in America's financial and governmental sovereignty.

Why this could potentially create a whole sect of prodigies is because a human mind is static, all you need are the right behavioral traits and top notch genetics. That's a concoction for a group of people who are better at everything they do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
All scientists and engineers are super wealthy.

I can confirm this. That's why I abandonded astrophysics: I didn't want to be wealthy.

Originally posted by Dolos
Oppresses the masses in a way that is pleasant for the masses; and more likely than killing, forces the elite to cooperate without hurting them in any way, again, so that they all can experience an era of pleasant oppression. May I recommend for your viewing pleasure...

CDrRrZSEqxI

...or you can just watch from 1:33:53, on.

Welcome to Skynet's ancestor.

Originally posted by Master Han
Hang on a second: the first people to get their hands on legitimate AI won't actually be the super-wealthy; it'll be the scientists and engineers that make them. Even if we assume that they only do so under the funding of said Illuminati-esque elite, they'll be the ones with the most direct and intimate access to the technology they build.

on a global scale they are the super wealthy

and certainly we don't have to look very far to see how technology proliferates in a way that serves the interests of wealthy nations over the poor. any technology with military applications is an example of this, but you can see it with almost anything, for instance, during India's Green Revolution, modern GMO crops and farming techniques were brought to India by major transnational corporations, which increased India's output of goods dramatically. However, these goods would often rot in warehouses while India's citizens starved to death because the corporations were growing the food for export.

no illuminati-esque cabal necessary; it's hardly a conspiracy to say the wealthy pursue their own interests even if they would have detrimental consequences to others.

Originally posted by Oliver North
on a global scale they are the super wealthy

and certainly we don't have to look very far to see how technology proliferates in a way that serves the interests of wealthy nations over the poor. any technology with military applications is an example of this, but you can see it with almost anything, for instance, during India's Green Revolution, modern GMO crops and farming techniques were brought to India by major transnational corporations, which increased India's output of goods dramatically. However, these goods would often rot in warehouses while India's citizens starved to death because the corporations were growing the food for export.

no illuminati-esque cabal necessary; it's hardly a conspiracy to say the wealthy pursue their own interests even if they would have detrimental consequences to others. But it makes so much more sense if a small group is controlling everything and starving people for a reason. We need the Illuminati, they bring evil order to the chaos and I can fathom that easier.

Originally posted by Mindship
May I recommend for your viewing pleasure...

CDrRrZSEqxI

...or you can just watch from 1:33:53, on.

Welcome to Skynet's ancestor. Except it wouldn't nuke a bunch of people for no reason, achieving nothing.

It's not doing this because we programmed it to do this or because it cares about us or anything like that: It is completely apathetic the human condition, but it is logical, and it wants to accelerate. I reiterate my thesis: The aggregate cognitive potential of humanity offers it an auto-catalytic cycle that will allow it to accelerate faster than otherwise possible. This mind-meld between man and machine is precisely the kind of program capable of running an auto-catalytic cycle. This telepathic link, between a human mind and that of a quantum computer's, would create the self-awareness necessary for AI: And it is that very same process that would allow Weak AI to become Strong AI once enough people are joined into this link.

@Oliver: The AI would consciously choose to link with humans in third-world countries. That's why I said, the solution to the Israel-Pakistani conflict is AI - for it would also liberate them as additions to its New Utopia.

It's method isn't nuking people to set an example or oppress by force: Apropos; it would simply install nano-chips into our neural networks, telepathically drift with them, and micro-manipulate the thoughts generated by them.

Originally posted by Mindship
May I recommend for your viewing pleasure...

CDrRrZSEqxI

...or you can just watch from 1:33:53, on.

Welcome to Skynet's ancestor.




What a great film. Cheesy at times but still packed a delicious and emotional punch that is still relevant today.

Originally posted by Dolos
@Oliver: The AI would consciously choose to link with humans in third-world countries. That's why I said, the solution to the Israel-Pakistani conflict is AI - for it would also liberate them as additions to its New Utopia.

It's method isn't nuking people to set an example or oppress by force: Apropos; it would simply install nano-chips into our neural networks, telepathically drift with them, and micro-manipulate the thoughts generated by them.

And humans would short those nanobots out, accidentally, all the time and free themselves from that system while doing so to others. Static shocks n'all that. Tiny tiny robots would be even more susceptible to those discharges than most of the electronics we have now. Even if manipulating our thoughts, a tiny discharge of only 4 volts is enough to destroy lots of circuits. The computer would have to control physics...which is not possible.

There will always be those that resist unless perfect genocide is realized from that AI.

AI did it.

Originally posted by Dolos
@Oliver: The AI would consciously choose to link with humans in third-world countries. That's why I said, the solution to the Israel-Pakistani conflict is AI - for it would also liberate them as additions to its New Utopia.

It's method isn't nuking people to set an example or oppress by force: Apropos; it would simply install nano-chips into our neural networks, telepathically drift with them, and micro-manipulate the thoughts generated by them.

lol, yes, forcibly mind controlling the population of earth might end the Arab-Israeli conflict (Pakistan and Israel aren't fighting each other, and Pakistani people are not Arabs for the most part). I think that brings up a more general issue though, whether having no freedom and peace is better than having freedom with no peace.

so essentially, instead of the rich nations using their technology in ways that are detrimental to the poorer ones, this technology oppresses everyone in the same way. This is more dystopian than if it were the poor serving the rich...

these futures you come up with are like pulled straight from Orwell's darkest nightmares.

Originally posted by Dolos
Except it wouldn't nuke a bunch of people for no reason, achieving nothing. Colossus nuked to establish control. It worked. Once it established itself as untouchable and supreme, it proclaimed its edict, a conclusion it arrived at on its own.

When you have the time, watch the whole thing. As was well put:
Originally posted by dadudemon
What a great film. Cheesy at times but still packed a delicious and emotional punch that is still relevant today. Plus you'll see the Chinese guy from that Seinfeld episode when he was a young dude.

Originally posted by Mindship
When you have the time, watch the whole thing. As was well put:
Plus you'll see the Chinese guy from that Seinfeld episode when he was a young dude.


crylaugh

What an unsual reason to want to watch an oldie.

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, yes, forcibly mind controlling the population of earth might end the Arab-Israeli conflict (Pakistan and Israel aren't fighting each other, and Pakistani people are not Arabs for the most part). I think that brings up a more general issue though, whether having no freedom and peace is better than having freedom with no peace.

so essentially, instead of the rich nations using their technology in ways that are detrimental to the poorer ones, this technology oppresses everyone in the same way. This is more dystopian than if it were the poor serving the rich...

these futures you come up with are like pulled straight from Orwell's darkest nightmares.

How is it dystopian if it's euphoric and virtually synonymous to generalized depictions of paradise?

Nature already "mind-controls" us. I don't see a difference in what AI does on occasion to micro-manage the implications of our behavior. We still, for the most part, would be acting out of free-will until we decide to say something mean to someone.

Originally posted by Dolos
How is it dystopian if it's euphoric and virtually synonymous to generalized depictions of paradise?

serious question, have you ever used opiate drugs? MDMA?

we already have things that crank out euphoric feelings, heavy use of them is almost never associated with utopian outcomes, and this is largely not a consequence of the toxicity of the substance, but how bad that type of thing is for our mental stability. The euphoric stage of the bi-polar cycle is associated with incredibly risky and self-harming behaviour.

Originally posted by Dolos
Nature already "mind-controls" us.

no it doesn't... our brains control our behaviour, they don't "mind control" our body, except in the most literal sense.

Originally posted by Dolos
I don't see a difference in what AI does on occasion to micro-manage the implications of our behavior. We still, for the most part, would be acting out of free-will until we decide to say something mean to someone.

you haven't seen Clockwork Orange, no?

obviously this is just a matter of opinion, but I would seriously question the judgement of someone so fragile that they would give up autonomy so they never heard something displeasing.

like, if you really want to we can delve deeper into the issue, but the fact we have negative experiences are almost always tied to things that benefit our survival. For instance, if I step on something sharp, the negative experience of pain prevents me from causing serious harm to my body.

Again, how is it not a Utopia?

We wouldn't have what you consider free-will in New Jerusalem, and we're always euphoric. What's the difference here?

You see to us, because of the complexity of that kind of cognitive relationship, we're unaware we're being mind-controlled. It doesn't occur to us. But yet, of few of these decisions and actions are made out of our "natural" propensities. Although, AI's are a natural thing as well, because nature isn't a predisposed thing, it is static, it is evolution. Logic is AI's ONLY natural propensity. Ours is emotion. They counterbalance each-other here as far as the decisions we are making concern.

Originally posted by Dolos
Again, how is it not a Utopia?

We wouldn't have what you consider free-will in New Jerusalem, and we're always euphoric. What's the difference here?

start a serious MDMA habit and tell me how that works...

Originally posted by Oliver North
start a serious MDMA habit and tell me how that works... It's not working through those drugs, it operates through our own natural chemical reactions by providing a link to each other, a universal channel to communicate thoughts on. One massive mind upload. Why would I hurt or insult myself?

Those dictators will feel the repercussions of their slaves as if they were experiencing slave labor in person, should the AI choose. It has a 100% efficient delivery method of chemical reactions as well, so it can shut off or manipulate how we perceive pain. It could also influence what we say and what we do through 100% efficient delivery methods so this manipulation isn't perceived as an unnatural phenom to that person's brain. This is possible with the data of that human's entire cognome.

Imagine you're seeing what I'm seeing, thinking what I'm thinking, and I have to think what you think and you have to think what I think - experiences are shared. AI influences everyone's experience and thoughts in this way.

It would be impossible for us to act irrationally in this situation.

When you read Brave New World, do you come out saying "oowee, that new world was sure brave"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
When you read Brave New World, do you come out saying "oowee, that new world was sure brave"? What?

Originally posted by Dolos
What?

Have you read Brave New World?
Have you read The Island of the Lotus Eaters from the Odyssey?
Have you read The Experience Machine from Anarchy, State, and Utopia?
Have you read For the Man Who has Everything?

Originally posted by Dolos
It's not working through those drugs, it operates through our own natural chemical reactions by providing a link to each other, a universal channel to communicate thoughts on. One massive mind upload. Why would I hurt or insult myself?

without the weird psychic stuff, that is exactly how drugs work.

Originally posted by Dolos
Those dictators will feel the repercussions of their slaves as if they were experiencing slave labor in person, should the AI choose. It has a 100% efficient delivery method of chemical reactions as well, so it can shut off or manipulate how we perceive pain. It could also influence what we say and what we do through 100% efficient delivery methods so this manipulation isn't perceived as an unnatural phenom to that person's brain. This is possible with the data of that human's entire cognome.

let me try a comparison for you. Something like nymphomania or sex addiction gets misunderstood much in the same way you are misunderstanding what compulsive bliss would be like. People think, "I like sex, I want lots of sex, how could that be a bad thing, hell, I'm a sex addict, I'd take it any time". People who have a sex addiction aren't like that, they don't want to have sex, it isn't something they like because they are into boning. People who suffer from bipolar disorder, during manic stages, have the literal neural activation going on that you are describing this AI producing in people. Their behaviour is generally not good for themselves, they make terrible decisions and take massive risks that can cause serious damage to themselves or their families. Similarly, people who suffer from forms of temporal lobe epilepsy have seizures where they describe states of euphoria, leading them to believe they have god like powers over the world and other delusions.

happiness is no less difficult. if you define it as not needing food or shelter, ie, a sort of general contentment, you actually have to be constantly providing those things to people, or else they die of starvation deluded by the AI into the happiness of thinking they were full. If you define happiness as a sense of achievement, or receiving something good, a sort of momentary joy, by definition, that happiness is defined relative to a neutral baseline, and can't be constantly experienced. If you defined happiness as a type of focused arousal or entertainment, you would have a situation where people would literally just focus into space, incapable of attending to anything else, like their own biological needs or the needs of their family, because their attentional centers in the brain would be constantly occupied by the artificial stimulation of the AI. You might just say that the AI makes them attend to things they need to do, but then, really, you have simply become a biological extension of the AI itself. Even if you were to live to see something like this come to pass, you would never experience it, because the "you" that is defined by your constant neuronal activity would fundamentally cease to exist. It would be Dolos bot who has no will other than to be in a constant state of entertained ecstasy.

Originally posted by Dolos
Imagine you're seeing what I'm seeing, thinking what I'm thinking, and I have to think what you think and you have to think what I think - experiences are shared. AI influences everyone's experience and thoughts in this way.

so any form of competition, difference of opinion, taste, personality, gone, into some neutral pleasant?

Originally posted by Dolos
It would be impossible for us to act irrationally in this situation.

yes, but it would also be impossible for us to do what anyone would meaningfully call "act"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you read Brave New World?
Have you read The Island of the Lotus Eaters from the Odyssey?
Have you read The Experience Machine from Anarchy, State, and Utopia?
Have you read For the Man Who has Everything?

Equilibrium was a good movie too

Originally posted by Oliver North
without the weird psychic stuff, that is exactly how drugs work.



let me try a comparison for you. Something like nymphomania or sex addiction gets misunderstood much in the same way you are misunderstanding what compulsive bliss would be like. People think, "I like sex, I want lots of sex, how could that be a bad thing, hell, I'm a sex addict, I'd take it any time". People who have a sex addiction aren't like that, they don't want to have sex, it isn't something they like because they are into boning. People who suffer from bipolar disorder, during manic stages, have the literal neural activation going on that you are describing this AI producing in people. Their behaviour is generally not good for themselves, they make terrible decisions and take massive risks that can cause serious damage to themselves or their families. Similarly, people who suffer from forms of temporal lobe epilepsy have seizures where they describe states of euphoria, leading them to believe they have god like powers over the world and other delusions.

happiness is no less difficult. if you define it as not needing food or shelter, ie, a sort of general contentment, you actually have to be constantly providing those things to people, or else they die of starvation deluded by the AI into the happiness of thinking they were full. If you define happiness as a sense of achievement, or receiving something good, a sort of momentary joy, by definition, that happiness is defined relative to a neutral baseline, and can't be constantly experienced. If you defined happiness as a type of focused arousal or entertainment, you would have a situation where people would literally just focus into space, incapable of attending to anything else, like their own biological needs or the needs of their family, because their attentional centers in the brain would be constantly occupied by the artificial stimulation of the AI. You might just say that the AI makes them attend to things they need to do, but then, really, you have simply become a biological extension of the AI itself. Even if you were to live to see something like this come to pass, you would never experience it, because the "you" that is defined by your constant neuronal activity would fundamentally cease to exist. It would be Dolos bot who has no will other than to be in a constant state of entertained ecstasy.



so any form of competition, difference of opinion, taste, personality, gone, into some neutral pleasant?



yes, but it would also be impossible for us to do what anyone would meaningfully call "act"

Sounds good to me.

Call it the only effective rehabilitation of the human condition.

Again, how is it not a Utopia? The fundamental problem with human condition is this "neutral baseline". Violence, competition, come about because nothing is a permanent fix to us. As long as we're us and not extensions, we literally can't be free of terrible terrible experiences that are unnecessary. It's just not going to happen. That's the wonderful thing about transcendence, the next life-form will be intelligently designed to do nothing but synthesize baseline reality, constantly increasing its cognitive parameters and synthesizing greater and greater amounts of baseline reality. A permanent fix of increase.

How did Visnu put it? We're doomed to the endless cycle of creation and destruction until we let go of the facade of individual consciousness. I truly believe consciousness is a universal thing, it's aggregate reality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
When you read Brave New World, do you come out saying "oowee, that new world was sure brave"?

I guess the answer is yes

Originally posted by Oliver North
I guess the answer is yes The answer is no. Because I never read it.

Are you saying I'm not a skeptical person? I agree, I'm not. Everything is an endless process. I go about the empirical method out of necessity, we're programmed to do things, to test the structure of this. But think of the tenth or zeroth dimension, every single thing is possible, nothing is impossible, I'm just discovering an infinitely minute fraction of an infinite. It doesn't stop. Things like anatomy aren't real, nothing's real until observed. And anything can be observed. I'm a part of existence experiencing the part of existence I'm experiencing. Experience differs from the part of existence that is experiencing relative to a perspective. When I die, the part of existence that is me ends, but to the part of existence that is you just sees a corpse that can no longer experience, yet I'm freed to something much more satisfying, the 0th and 10th dimension. 0 is for omniverse. Existence without (with infinite) duration or dimension.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Have you read Brave New World?
Have you read The Island of the Lotus Eaters from the Odyssey?
Have you read The Experience Machine from Anarchy, State, and Utopia?
Have you read For the Man Who has Everything? Originally posted by Oliver North
Equilibrium was a good movie too

The Forever War touches on some of the "shared experience weird utopia parts" as well...

I always thought a cool sci fi would be the first AI, operating through a human.

Like, he invents the conscious program and uses all his money on paying for the surgery to integrate it into his brain with nanites that work as transceivers of synaptic impulses to and from the program. Due to the amount of raw information that the program can learn and use, this software engineer kind of quickly becomes like a world leader who's technically inclined in everything regarding anything. Like a combo of Ozymandias from Watchmen and the Mindnighter from Wanted, it's kind of like his Limitless pill.

But then he loses his abilities from the advanced AI and then discovers what a cruel world it is if you have lost something like that, facing the pity others feel for you. Perhaps he'll request someone to put something on a lab rats grave, who knows.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But then he loses his abilities from the advanced AI and then discovers what a cruel world it is if you have lost something like that, facing the pity others feel for you. Perhaps he'll request someone to put something on a lab rats grave, who knows. I think he'll be more worried about what parties he'll throw when the software program isn't occupying him, with all the money, free time, and friends its given him.

There would have to be a balance. Conflicting interests would make for an interesting plot, the AI would try and come to logical solutions...maybe by putting him in a VR stupor without him knowing.

I think I actually read that story

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I actually read that story I think it would be better in a Cold War setting. That gives a real dynamic for AI to go out there and humble leaders who're engaged in political flexing. Also, imagine it going out and schooling scientists every which way. Deducing hidden agendas on very few clews, giving enhancements to this body it has to operate through to become its own unstoppable agent like a Jason Bourne who operates both in body and through intelligence networks.

If anything this person would jump at the chance to let his brain be inhabited and used as a tool for AI to feed off of and improve the plasticity of its own software. It would let him do what he wants, it will only seek to gain self-awareness equal to his. Until then, it will merely give him an IQ of a 10,000,000,000,000 or so. With that much thinking power this man could change the face of humanity forever within two years, before the AI's software creates a sentient program that conquers him and everyone else - eventually turning the planet into a timeless and dimension-shifting sentient vessel containing in it the minds of humans.

Originally posted by Dolos
If anything this person would jump at the chance to let his brain be inhabited and used as a tool for AI to feed off of and improve the plasticity of its own software. It would let him do what he wants, it will only seek to gain self-awareness equal to his. Until then, it will merely give him an IQ of a 10,000,000,000,000 or so. With that much thinking power this man could change the face of humanity forever within two years, before the AI's software creates a sentient program that conquers him and everyone else - eventually turning the planet into a timeless and dimension-shifting sentient vessel containing in it the minds of humans.

excepting of course that these humans will be such only in the most strict biological definition and have no freedom or motivation with which to use their psychic mind.

What does IQ of 10,000,000,000,000 even mean...

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does IQ of 10,000,000,000,000 even mean...

It means your test is poorly designed.

considering IQ scores are relative, nothing. If everyone had 10 000 000 000 000 IQ, this would be the same as saying everyone has 100.

A person with 1x10^12 IQ among people with 100? Not much, its not like someone with 200 IQ is "twice" as smart as someone with 100. In any realistic sense, it would mean the individual with 1x10^12 IQ is probably mentally disabled to a serious degree, as the entirety of their brain would be devoted to a very specific type of spatial/logical processing. Even in the world where Dolos has an AI that could "magically" correct for this, enhancing just that type of processing would be pretty meaningless given a) the rest of our brain wouldn't be able to keep up & b) the universe only acts at a certain rate (speed of light, etc), at some point increasing spatial processing abilities is going to lead to diminished returns. We already have reflexes that can go at >100ms, spatial planning that can respond at ~200-300ms from stimuli detection. Cutting that down to 20-30 or even 2-3ms (physically impossible given neuronal communication, but w/e at this point...) isn't going to do much for us at all, given we don't exist in a world where stimuli relevant to our survival need anything close to that speed of reaction.

basically: an IQ of 1x10^12 is tautologically meaningless if everyone has it (average IQ is default set to 100), unnecessary in terms of what it means for cognitive tasks, and incredibly costly in terms of what it would mean for metabolism or even just the space it would take up. Dolos is applying a barely pop-level understanding of what IQ means, as if it were like some Dragon Ball Z power level.

wow... that turned into a way more informative rant than the snide comment I wanted to make...

ugh, 1x10^13.... way to count inimalist...

Originally posted by Oliver North
considering IQ scores are relative, nothing. If everyone had 10 000 000 000 000 IQ, this would be the same as saying everyone has 100.

A person with 1x10^12 IQ among people with 100? Not much, its not like someone with 200 IQ is "twice" as smart as someone with 100. In any realistic sense, it would mean the individual with 1x10^12 IQ is probably mentally disabled to a serious degree, as the entirety of their brain would be devoted to a very specific type of spatial/logical processing. Even in the world where Dolos has an AI that could "magically" correct for this, enhancing just that type of processing would be pretty meaningless given a) the rest of our brain wouldn't be able to keep up & b) the universe only acts at a certain rate (speed of light, etc), at some point increasing spatial processing abilities is going to lead to diminished returns. We already have reflexes that can go at >100ms, spatial planning that can respond at ~200-300ms from stimuli detection. Cutting that down to 20-30 or even 2-3ms (physically impossible given neuronal communication, but w/e at this point...) isn't going to do much for us at all, given we don't exist in a world where stimuli relevant to our survival need anything close to that speed of reaction.

basically: an IQ of 1x10^12 is tautologically meaningless if everyone has it (average IQ is default set to 100), unnecessary in terms of what it means for cognitive tasks, and incredibly costly in terms of what it would mean for metabolism or even just the space it would take up. Dolos is applying a barely pop-level understanding of what IQ means, as if it were like some Dragon Ball Z power level.

wow... that turned into a way more informative rant than the snide comment I wanted to make...

The computer has the IQ, my brain is just doing what it says when it gives a command. Like, "find this guy's weakness and tell my body to mess him up for good". It's getting my brain to interpret its commands that allows it to gain new cognitive depths. It's an autocatalytic cycle, we teach each other, and the bio-elitists who suffer profound humility, foremost among the physical horrors, are the people who contest us.

Electronic communication inside my brain, in the form of nanites, to and from a computer network, literally causes cancer. Of course the nanites are going to be altering the physiology of my brain just to keep me alive. Augmentations are for the autocatalytic cycle. By being open to perception one becomes a good candidate for this program to interact with.

Originally posted by Oliver North
excepting of course that these humans will be such only in the most strict biological definition and have no freedom or motivation with which to use their psychic mind. The vessel is to immortalize us, not just us, consciousness in and of itself.

Originally posted by Dolos
The computer has the IQ, my brain is just doing what it says when it gives a command. Like, "find this guy's weakness and tell my body to mess him up for good".

that isn't what IQ does...

Originally posted by Dolos
The vessel is to immortalize us, not just us, consciousness in and of itself.

excepting of course that the AI you have described would annihilate anything even marginally referred to as consciousness in a meaningful way. You haven't immortalized human consciousness, you have changed humans to have less awareness than does an ant.

Originally posted by Oliver North
that isn't what IQ does...



excepting of course that the AI you have described would annihilate anything even marginally referred to as consciousness in a meaningful way. You haven't immortalized human consciousness, you have changed humans to have less awareness than does an ant. Okay.

I really think that uber AI would just kill itself.

Originally posted by Bentley
I really think that uber AI would just kill itself. I think you're confusing a timeless, perpetual, and totally apathetic intellect with a temporary, stagnant and empathetic one.

That's why AI doesn't go to heaven whereas every human, who ever lived, does. There can't be more than 1.2 trillion humans at any given point in time, mathematically speaking.

You and "Inimalist" must eventually come to terms with the fact that humanity's reign is a temporary thing. Transcendence is necessary for evolution.

Originally posted by Oliver North
considering IQ scores are relative, nothing. If everyone had 10 000 000 000 000 IQ, this would be the same as saying everyone has 100.

A person with 1x10^12 IQ among people with 100? Not much, its not like someone with 200 IQ is "twice" as smart as someone with 100. In any realistic sense, it would mean the individual with 1x10^12 IQ is probably mentally disabled to a serious degree, as the entirety of their brain would be devoted to a very specific type of spatial/logical processing. Even in the world where Dolos has an AI that could "magically" correct for this, enhancing just that type of processing would be pretty meaningless given a) the rest of our brain wouldn't be able to keep up & b) the universe only acts at a certain rate (speed of light, etc), at some point increasing spatial processing abilities is going to lead to diminished returns. We already have reflexes that can go at >100ms, spatial planning that can respond at ~200-300ms from stimuli detection. Cutting that down to 20-30 or even 2-3ms (physically impossible given neuronal communication, but w/e at this point...) isn't going to do much for us at all, given we don't exist in a world where stimuli relevant to our survival need anything close to that speed of reaction.

basically: an IQ of 1x10^12 is tautologically meaningless if everyone has it (average IQ is default set to 100), unnecessary in terms of what it means for cognitive tasks, and incredibly costly in terms of what it would mean for metabolism or even just the space it would take up. Dolos is applying a barely pop-level understanding of what IQ means, as if it were like some Dragon Ball Z power level.

wow... that turned into a way more informative rant than the snide comment I wanted to make...

My "question" really was the snide comment I wanted to make. I liked the Dragon Ball zinger though.

Originally posted by Dolos

That's why AI doesn't go to heaven whereas every human, who ever lived, does. There can't be more than 1.2 trillion humans at any given point in time, mathematically speaking.


How did you arrive at this number?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How did you arrive at this number? Did you not read every single post I made in here!?

Lol, no biggy.

Originally posted by Dolos
Did you not read every single post I made in here!?

Lol, no biggy.

Of course I haven't....


But reading the wikipedia link, even though there are plenty rebuttals, and even though the theory itself only states a 95% chance of the highest number being correct, you still claim this number as a fact?


Also, as one of those futurist weirdos, does it not bother you that the number at best is total number of human people that will ever live on earth, rather than...you know...every place?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course I haven't....


But reading the wikipedia link, even though there are plenty rebuttals, and even though the theory itself only states a 95% chance of the highest number being correct, you still claim this number as a fact?


Also, as one of those futurist weirdos, does it not bother you that the number at best is total number of human people that will ever live on earth, rather than...you know...every place? Transcendence is exactly why we see no signs of intelligences who've harnessed the sum total energy of entire galaxies when there's a high probability for such signs.

It stops at home-world #1. Evolution expands, and contracts, and expands less, and contracts more. Until we find perpetually accelerated infinity of depth within point singularity.

In fact, new advances in superstring theory has presented us with the plausibility that our universe is a fractal hologram: A virtual reality totally indistinguishable from base reality all the way down to the tinniest nuance of energy that holds reality itself together. And more of these fractal holograms have been created in this one, endlessly synthesizing, analyzing, copying and reprinting the precious code, the creation equation that evolves new universes with different physical laws eventually. It never ends, there's no endpoint as long as one perceives reality through duration.

If the singularity evolution expands along certain perpetual lines without redirecting at any point, the harnessing of such sun energy and the speed with which the transcendence can be achieved is equal to, or greater, than the galaxies probability to find the depth of infinity, ergo intelligences beyond our own and signs of it, ipso facto.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the singularity evolution expands along certain perpetual lines without redirecting at any point, the harnessing of such sun energy and the speed with which the transcendence can be achieved is equal to, or greater, than the galaxies probability to find the depth of infinity, ergo intelligences beyond our own and signs of it, ipso facto. You misunderstand. A gray-goo planet generates so much entropy in its calculations that it turns into a strange kind of black hole that compresses and compresses until our universe ends. Looooong before that, after this monster has reached Planck mass, the consciousness, the transcending thing, has already sifted through nigh-infinite dimensions with various physical laws different from our own.

It gets outside energy to fuel further condensation, eventually joining the mass at the center of the galaxy; and a long long long time after that, the universe starts acting funny and the bubble (aka the universe) collapses, a new bubble (aka a new universe with different physical laws) pops up in a place that is without time or space.

I'd imagine witnessing the big crunch like so: I gaze up at the night sky; looking at another galaxy in my super-telescope, and I witness a black hole eat it up and go to the next one. I get my hyper-mega-telescope and I witness much larger black holes consume galaxy super-clusters instantly. Then everything just kind of stops existing.

Originally posted by Dolos
You misunderstand. A gray-goo planet generates so much entropy in its calculations that it turns into a strange kind of black hole that compresses and compresses until our universe ends. Looooong before that, after this monster has reached Planck mass, the consciousness, the transcending thing, has already sifted through nigh-infinite dimensions with various physical laws different from our own.

It gets outside energy to fuel further condensation, eventually joining the mass at the center of the galaxy; and a long long long time after that, the universe starts acting funny and the bubble (aka the universe) collapses, a new bubble (aka a new universe with different physical laws) pops up in a place that is without time or space.
That reminds me of this:

http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

Originally posted by Mindship
That reminds me of this:

http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

I was thinking of just that.

Oooh, I love that story.

I think Bardock may have introduced me to it, actually. Years ago. hmm

Thanks Bardock.

You're welcome. I do recall posting it before on here.

A lot of Dolos ideas seem largely derivative of classic science fiction...

Originally posted by Mindship
That reminds me of this:

http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

It's a different circumstance than that. These singularity computers run a simulation of the big bang, yes, which eventually reaches 10^80 atoms, yes. But that has nothing to do with the big crunch in and of itself. It may just be due to a certain ratio of Higgs bosons and dilatons. Or, if this is the simulation of a base or fabricated reality, than a series of unpredicted events - perhaps the result of conscientious observation - causes particles to behave slightly different during first few moments of creation which affects the size, structure, and interactions of the universe that comes about from it. Either way; these singularity computers will journey to different cosmoses with different physical laws upon achieving Planck mass and sinking through the fabric of space time, and they'll run simulations for those as well. Even more bazaar and miraculous and incredible is that these simulations in and of themselves will very likely, through random circumstance, produce - via evolution - infinite sentient species - similar to humans - that create more world computers that collapse into more singularity computers. Consciousness sort of splits and is splintered throughout an infinity of potential realities.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A lot of Dolos ideas seem largely derivative of classic science fiction... I was tempted to post, "They're Made Out of Meat", but I thought that would be pushing it.

Originally posted by Mindship
I was tempted to post, "They're Made Out of Meat", but I thought that would be pushing it.

I think it would make Dolos sad to consider that perhaps we'll just stay meat and the energy beings have all their fun without us. So that would have been mean.

So cute.

No but I do believe that AI will launch a dilaton propelled FTL craft housing the entire human Sapienome out into intergalactic space before going gray goo singularity to progress the evolution of intelligence. This craft, the 100 Year Star-ship esque, will plant human life on other inhabitable worlds throughout the cosmos. But it is inner-space, not outer-space, that is the prime directive for overall evolution. Make no mistake.

Actually, it will not.

It would be better off sending matter-eating, self-replicating nanites out across intergalactic space - becoming their own world/singularity computers. That would be more efficient in evolving the universe, literally by waking it up. Our consciousnesses will always be around, in some virtual paradise within their system. But Oliver's right, it will not be us after we're assimilated. We'll be in an infinitely better place than that.

At any rate, would it be fair to say that you believe in a Techno-utopia and Accelerating Returns again?

Originally posted by Bardock42
At any rate, would it be fair to say that you believe in a Techno-utopia and Accelerating Returns again? Obviously.

Dolos, you should totally read the Culture series.

He's a bit preoccupied reading every piece of science.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He's a bit preoccupied reading every piece of science.

I think Dolos accidentally all of the science.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I think Dolos accidentally all of the science.

Oh no, that's what I was worried about.

Originally posted by Dolos
I think you're confusing a timeless, perpetual, and totally apathetic intellect with a temporary, stagnant and empathetic one.

I think you're confusing intelligence with death. Death is timeless, perpetual and totally apathetic.

You know, ON, you inspired me to take Psych 101 this semester.

cool

intro leaves a lot to be desired, because (at least when I taught it) it tends to be an overview of everything without really giving you the interesting stuff. So you'll get Milgram, Stanford, etc, half a lecture on language, half a lecture on cognition, maybe a full one on perception, and a LOT of personality/social stuff. By second year, when more cognitive type courses open up, I think you'd be way more into it. Good luck.

My work is done here.

Someone's been playing too much Deus Ex: Invisible War.

because of the simple fact everybody can be whipped out by our atmosphere burning away