Is more technology the answer?

Consciousness itself is a thermodynamic miracle, but that fact is merely the result of the limitations of the current model (a lack scientific understanding).

We merely lack a complete understanding of this world, which contains an infinity of things to understand. That just goes to show how advanced technology might as well be magic to us, because it can result to outcomes we could not explain. Probability manipulation.

Science has never and never will be about having all the answers. It's always going to have an infinitely minute portion of the whole thing. Science is about more, it's about expansion, expanding what we know. It's a never ending journey that spurts out more questions than answers as the process continues to progress into the future. By that reasoning more technology is the answer, for its lack of limitations, its endlessness.

Because as scientific understanding increases, so then too does its technical implications in designing new technologies and innovations. Achieving any probability is a matter of time, because the scientific model will always have room to grow. Science and technology are intrinsically cumulative when an inexorable will such as my own is committed to its usage in problem solving.

Originally posted by Dolos
Consciousness itself is a thermodynamic miracle, but that fact is merely the result of the limitations of the current model (a lack scientific understanding).

We merely lack a complete understanding of this world, which contains an infinity of things to understand. That just goes to show how advanced technology might as well be magic to us, because it can result to outcomes we could not explain. Probability manipulation.

Science has never and never will be about having all the answers. It's always going to have an infinitely minute portion of the whole thing. Science is about more, it's about expansion, expanding what we know. It's a never ending journey that spurts out more questions than answers as the process continues to progress into the future. By that reasoning more technology is the answer, for its lack of limitations, its endlessness.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Science is also not about baseless speculation.

Show me a quote where I claimed it to be?

And I will explain to you how it was out of context as I continue to attempt the invocation of reason into your corrupted hearts.

Originally posted by Dolos
Show me a quote where I claimed it to be?

And I will explain to you how it was out of context as I continue to attempt the invocation of reason into your corrupted hearts.

You should cut down on unnecessary verbiage. If I had to critique your posts as an assignment for their grammatical and syntactical merits, I'd circle pretty much every line and write "awkward" or "suggest revision" next to them.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You didn't claim it because you're seemingly unaware that that's what you're doing. You're speculating about science's potential without support as a means of compensating for your lack of real scientific support for your original speculations and claims.

You caught me red handed, I'm flawed, I've been deviating from the path as of late. We all are flawed.

You should cut down on unnecessary verbiage. I have doubts that you know what invocation actually means.

What you think I heard it somewhere and so I just use that word in the same way without ever reading the definition?

That's called being socially inclined and, in my specific case, articulate as well.

I used the word accurately anyway, so even in the false-reality where your 'baseless speculation' is correct, it is still irrelevant to the point I was making.

Originally posted by Dolos
You caught me red handed, I'm flawed, I've been deviating from the path as of late. We all are flawed.

What you think I heard it somewhere and so I just use that word in the same way without ever reading the definition?

That's called being socially inclined.

I used the word accurately anyway, so if your 'baseless speculation' were correct, it would be irrelevant.

How would it be irrelevant? And how exactly would your supposed correct usage nullify my original point that you're approaching science in an unscientific and fanciful manner?

Originally posted by Dolos
What you think I heard it somewhere and so I just use that word in the same way without ever reading the definition?

That's what I think. You write like a person with a word a day calendar.

Originally posted by Dolos
That's called being socially inclined and, in my specific case, articulate as well.

This would be a great example of you not knowing what "socially inclined" or "articulate" means.

Originally posted by Dolos
Consciousness itself is a thermodynamic miracle, but that fact is merely the result of the limitations of the current model (a lack scientific understanding).

Moore was just embelishing the possible occurrence of extremely unlikely events whose behavior is governed by probabibility. for instance, when fluids undergo diffusion, the behavior of individual molecules is random, but, for all intents and purposes, observable macroscopic manifestations are invariably predictable: matter flows from the region of highest concentration to that of lowest. this is simply a matter of probability. if the opposite ever happened, we'd have an example of a "miracle" (in the sense of a rare event, not a supernaturally produced one). the same applies to heat dispersal: it is so unlikely that heat moves from a colder body to a hotter one, that it would be a "miracle", if it did.

Now (without entertaining metaphysical solipsism, which is utter crap, though irrefutable), consciousness (as in sentience or qualia), on the other hand, isn't even a rare phenomenon, all humans and many other animal lineages present it. Metacognitive functions such as self-awareness can likewise be found among a half-dozen species that we know of.

We merely lack a complete understanding of this world, which contains an infinity of things to understand. That just goes to show how advanced technology might as well be magic to us, because it can result to outcomes we could not explain. Probability manipulation.
[quote] this is just a no-limits fallacy compounded with magical thinking. our current uderstanding of the universe would indicate it doesn't even have infinite "things" in it for us to understand, though I'd agree it has far more than we ever will.

how would we possibly perform this probability manipulation?

[quote]
Science has never and never will be about having all the answers.

It's always going to have an infinitely minute portion of the whole thing. Science is about more, it's about expansion, expanding what we know. It's a never ending journey that spurts out more questions than answers as the process continues to progress into the future. By that reasoning more technology is the answer, for its lack of limitations, its endlessness.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's what I think. You write like a person with a word a day calendar.

I make it a point to utilize the arsenal that is my vocabulary to an awe-inspiring effect, in this case denial on your part, it's progressive.

This would be a great example of you not knowing what "socially inclined" or "articulate" means.

It indicates social inclination because I'm able to pick up on such subtleties as vocabulary, it at least indicates active social propensities.

It indicates an effort to be articulate because I am trying to string together words harmoniously, however erroneous my coherency, and a lack of fear of being corrected and a willingness to actively improve upon my vocabulary and articulation.

Originally posted by 753
you must stop conflating your existentialist prose with physical reality.

I feel I'm able to distinguish which parts are fantasies and which parts are realities from day to day. Especially when actions based on my fantasy-driven ideals have direct negative consequences.

I also feel that speculations such as these work a certain creative muscle, as long as I'm able to distinguish that they're speculations, I have no quarry with making them. In fact, I think I've offered such things in my argument merely as suggestions, or examples of what technology could be, its endless forms, and how AI could solve the most existential dilemma merely by being indifferent to human temptations. The power of suggestion or 'speculation' can steer oneself into the direction of scientific literacy, I'd at least be driven in the direction of technology, willing to be taken aback by being incorrect in my speculations.

Technology by very definition is the corporeal agent of science, and therefore I think it is the answer to existential problems.

Originally posted by Dolos
I feel I'm able to distinguish which parts are fantasies and which parts are realities from day to day. Especially when actions based on my fantasy-driven ideals have direct negative consequences.

I also feel that speculations such as these work a certain creative muscle, as long as I'm able to distinguish that they're speculations, I have no quarry with making them.

In fact, I think I've offered such things in my argument merely as suggestions, or examples of what technology could, and how AI could solve the most existential dilemma merely by being indifferent to human temptations.

The power of suggestion or 'speculation' can steer oneself into the direction of scientific literacy, I'd at least be driven in the direction of technology, willing to be taken aback by being incorrect in my speculations.

Originally posted by 753
yes, you should go about educating yourself in science. what are you going to study?

Everything.

A particular scientific skill-set, like an IQ, is nothing but a few components pieced together to perform a certain way. I am not limited by my current skill-set, not when I can make it fluid.

In order for one skill-set to progress more quickly, the other possible skill-sets must shrink or become shut off yes, but I have all the time in the world. It isn't until later on that I will focus a few very particular branches of sciences in total isolation from everything else in life, for a skill-set that meets my ends. But I want to get to where I know what I'm doing first, or to where I know what that skill-set might be.

For that branch, refer to the 'life goals' thread in off-topic.

Originally posted by 753
I'm intrigued. what dilemma exactly and how would AI's indifference to human wants solve them?

Originally posted by Dolos
Essentially as we get these nanites to augment our bodily functions, more and more of our body becomes cybernetic, smart skin, keeping the perpetually retreating organic parts that we are young and superhuman, then eventually transforming our organs into itself. Last to go is the brain. More and more of our cognitive functions will fleet into the neurocites, allowing us to live a thousand years in a VR paradise in a matter of days, before the technology actually assumes our consciousness and finishes devouring us.

It's really the best possible way to go out, and it works for the machines as well. I doubt they'd achieve such a level of self-awareness otherwise. But it's a different kind of self-awareness.

............

And no it's not going to create a living hell for us to die in because it's unpredictable or anything. It's a bunch of 1s and 0s, it doesn't think like that. It will finish constructing the nirvana we start once we're aware of the coming assimilation. It's our nature want a comfortable last few relative centuries to our sped up cognition before our final rest, the artificial intelligence would be completely indifferent.

So you see how very similar the machine apocalypse is to the end of times in almost every religion, heaven, and eternal rest, the end of humankind as we know it, and the further elevation of divination as we vanquish all evil, for machines know not of such things.

AI would be more intelligent than us? Unruled by biological urges? It would definitively kill itself.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(1) You claim Sym's analysis of human nature is pessimistic, yet go on to deliver a pessimistic, even dismissive view of humanity while at the same time glorifying some post-human wet dream.
(2) Your first paragraph is muddled. Try using more commas and breaking up your longer sentences.
(3) How is it your prerogative? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? Or did you mean to say that this was your prognosis?
(4) Your rambling on the evils of capitalism doesn't at all refute the notion of technological development not equating to moral development. What makes you so sure that self-interest and competition won't actually make for greater and faster scientific progress than selflessness and science for knowledge's sake? Philip Kitcher wrote a paper called The Division of Cognitive Labor that suggests that not only are greed, egotism, and even fraud not always harmful to scientific progress, but sometimes they actually lead us to great breakthroughs. One major example he gives is Galileo, who shamelessly self-promoted his theories, derided competing theories, and made claims that turned out to be correct later on but for which he (at the time of his making the claim) had no way of proving.

The answer is more attention to science and making scientifically literate the human race as a whole. Technology is just the instrument of science that leads to progress.

What's just as important as making politicians aware of science, and making the public less apathetic and sensitizing them to all kinds of issues that plague the world, is we need to make projects public and start pooling our efforts. The potential of global synergy is vastly untapped, because of how friggin lazy we are.

This is how I feel about how lazy people are, we only act when we're on the very precipice of our doom.

Originally posted by Dolos
This is how I feel about how lazy people are, we only act when we're on the very precipice of our doom.

Please?

On a massive level we're 7 billion children, not yet able to fend for ourselves, barely pulling through. Eventually, population will reach a level, and understanding and cooperation will not. That would be the end of it.

While we're lazy and letting things slip as Fight Club demonstrated, it is merely because of a lack of intrinsic motivation to create altruistically, and no common goal with subsequently unified cooperation in doing so. Of course; we already know this, it's an understanding so obvious that it's more intrinsic than intuition, it's common knowledge.

So it ignites a quasar of rage in me: We're aware of the major dilemma yet can't do anything about it. I'd intend to find a way, if humanly possible or otherwise.

Originally posted by Dolos
On a massive level we're 7 billion children, not yet able to fend for ourselves, barely pulling through. Eventually, population will reach a level, and understanding and cooperation will not. That would be the end of it.