|
2 registered members (Quad, AndrewAMD),
722
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: 10 Thousand Years in the Future
[Re: ArchitectTempest]
#68095
03/26/06 22:42
03/26/06 22:42
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I think that the question in the base of it would be "Do you believe in the soul?"
If you do, there is likely no question of whether machines will be alive.
If you do not, then Machines undoubtedly can, since then they are not much different than we are.
This has nothing to do with souls in my opinion. Infact, what do you mean with soul in this respect anyways?
Behaviour is our reaction on our world, wether or not it's the soul that makes us unique in our reaction (I think it's quite save to say, that no one reacts fully 100% the same, biological activities included, like breathing for example), or wether it's a preset genetic code defining our character is pretty irrelevant.
A machine will never have a soul (the spiritual one), and even if we could give it one, it will always be a recreation, since we cannot give souls, if there even is something as a soul. And unless we are going to develop biological bots, as in some sort of semi human clones, able to duplicate and self-repair, I don't think robots will come close to humans in their behaviour. The self-awareness can be easily faked, or at least it's far from impossible, yet would a perfect fake mean the robot has actually become self-aware or would it still be a fake? My calculator can give me some very clever answers, if and only if I 'ask' the right questions, I think that we should not expect a robot to develop new answers to questions not yet asked, to situations not yet experienced, to objects not added in it's library of knowledge. I think we are a long long way from robots really able to learn, and we are a long way from a perfect imitation that can't be distinguished from a human or at least how a human would act. The latter would have to be achieved by having no 'pre-defined behavior' to act by, not even some sort of 'procedural behavior', because wouldn't that still be an imitation and not the real learning we supposedly can?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: 10 Thousand Years in the Future
[Re: PHeMoX]
#68096
03/31/06 23:27
03/31/06 23:27
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 190
Variable
ArchitectTempest
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 190
Variable
|
What I mean is; if you believe in the soul, then you probable (correct me if I'm wrong, I may well be), then you believe that only God can grant a sould to a being. As a spul, by the christian definition, is the supernatural life, spirit of the body. The soul allows us to reason, to learn, etc. SOmething that machines cannot do. Even with trillions of lines of code, as you said, they can immitate life very well, but it will always be immitation. Even biologically. So, as you said, we could never really grant a soul.
That is, what I believe, anyway.
|
|
|
Re: 10 Thousand Years in the Future
[Re: Neonotso]
#68098
04/01/06 22:06
04/01/06 22:06
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 22
Ukraine
Harley_Potter
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 22
Ukraine
|
If those kind of machines will be made, they will definitely be used as weapon first, because they will be invented by military scientists. We all know (or at least understand), that military technologies developed faster, than civil. (Although, depends on country of course.)
So, it is quite enought to imagine thees machines usage consequences to understand, that they hardly will ever be released to public, because of their smartness.
OMON landing party burned down the field of weed. After that, they proclaimed themselves a division, and went to space to fight against pokemons.
|
|
|
Re: 10 Thousand Years in the Future
[Re: Harley_Potter]
#68099
04/05/06 04:07
04/05/06 04:07
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I have a plan to give everyone the eternalyouth that I have.
Tomorrow, and going off into next week... you all should feel and look as young as you were in the year 2000. Those of you who are atleast 30, you should atleast feel the affect. But do not worry. Unless you want to, you won't get younger than 11 days before your 24th birthday... unless you really really want to.
This should get you guys hope that (like me) you will be here, and young 10 thousand years in the future. So tell me, atleast by the end of the week how many of you are feeling as young as you did in the year 2000? However, it is possible that I may screw up and if I screw up... this will backfire and many of you will feel older. I hope I do not screw up. I will let you all know if I screwed up. If I screw up, only I will continue to experience the eternal youth.
|
|
|
Re: 10 Thousand Years in the Future
[Re: Neonotso]
#68100
04/05/06 16:39
04/05/06 16:39
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
This kind of gets me thinking back to the "if we can't do it, how can random chance do it?" thing. Seriously, no one shakes a box of computer parts for "billions of years" and then a computer pops out...  LOL
Letting something react random (or with a predefined random character) is still different from shaking a box of parts and hoping to see some results. Obviously it requires more than that, still I don't think that we could really get further than a perfect imitation. And would it still be an imitation at that point, or 'the real thing' (as in having a conscious for ex.)?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: 10 Thousand Years in the Future
[Re: PHeMoX]
#68101
10/02/06 15:21
10/02/06 15:21
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
I think strong AI is perfectly possible, but wont happen for some time, because computers are woefully underpowered compared to the human brain. You may not think so, but the human brain is far more capable of computing most things than even the most sophisticated computer.. while the human brain isnt so good at doing math, it can do other things like pattern recognition, speech recognition, fuzzy logic, creativity, etc.. These kinds of things are not well suited to the binary logic of a computer chip. Therefore, in order for computers to function similarly to human brains they will likely have to "evolve" some of the same characteristics. EDIT: Quote:
How can something as imperfect as us create something and expect it to be perfect?
OK Saint Anselm.. dont confuse the issue with your medieval mumbo-jumbo. No one said anything about perfection..such terms are meaningless anyway.. things are what they are.
|
|
|
|
