what will the zenith of human evolution be?

[floyd]

do you think humans will evolve into supernatural god like entities that can create at will? (do you ever ponder this possibility?)

[Biff_Loman]

I suppose it's possible that, whatever we do to the earth, enough humans with enough technology will probably be around to create super-enhanced cyborgs. Once we truly mate man with machine, it's difficult to determine what the limits might be.

But supernatural? No, of course not. How could we evolve beyond what is "natural?" It is an inherently natural process.

[Warrior413]

I'm not sure. But I do think about it after I've played Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri for several hours while listening to trance music.

[jimkopelli]

Anything is possible. Many things are exceedingly unlikely, to the point where they can be safely ignored.

[Edmond Zedo]

How convenient. I posted this link in the "immortality" thread 20 mins ago, and it's just as appropriate here.

Asimov's "The Last Question": http://www.maddad.org/asimov01.htm

[Warrior413]

Well they were both started by floyd, who seems to have something on his mind. :)

[jimkopelli]

Probably just another attempt to take over the world. Third one this week.


By the way... good link. I hadn't seen that story before.

[Claverhouse]

Me.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

:thumbup: :cheers:

[KentOhio]

I think we evolve into little greenish-gray beings, about 4 ft. tall with big black eyes and no hair. By the way, they also learn how to travel backwards through time, the time machines usually being saucer-shaped and activated just outside the Earth's atmosphere to prevent collisions with matter.

[Edmond Zedo]

I think we evolve into little greenish-gray beings, about 4 ft. tall with big black eyes and no hair. By the way, they also learn how to travel backwards through time, the time machines usually being saucer-shaped and activated just outside the Earth's atmosphere to prevent collisions with matter.
Then what?

[ApeTheDog]

Well

- We won't need our legs anymore since we'll sit down, or use a segway all the time. So they'll just fall off.
- We're going to evolve massive finger-muscles from all the typing we do. We may grow a couple of extra ones, or maybe our legs will even evolve into two extra arms. Anyway, extra fingers!
- Our brains will continue to grow even more, as having a large brain is the best way to ensure your survival as a human.
- The person who is capable of best camouflaging that he was the one who farted in the elevator has more chance of a promotion, so eventually we'll all develop camouflage farts which sound exactly like the person standing next to you in the elevator scraping his throat.

[floyd]

/Anything is possible. Many things are exceedingly unlikely, to the point where they can be safely ignored./

this prompts the question... if you were in a prison that no one had ever escaped from and you were scheduled to be executed in 50 years, would you focus your attention on a satisfying prison life before death with no concern for escape or would you focus on escape however unlikely. what is the satisifaction in a temporary, progressively less vibrant life (which is the current human state)? why is it 'safe' to ignore a death sentence? if life is worth living, why would one not explore escaping death (however remote)? is having an interest in staying alive less intelligent than accepting the certainty of death? why?

[Edmond Zedo]

this prompts the question... if you were in a prison that no one had ever escaped from and you were scheduled to be executed in 50 years, would you focus your attention on a satisfying prison life before death with no concern for escape or would you focus on escape however unlikely.
"Some birds aren't meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright." --The Shawshank Redemption

[file cabinet]

/Anything is possible. Many things are exceedingly unlikely, to the point where they can be safely ignored./

this prompts the question... if you were in a prison that no one had ever escaped from and you were scheduled to be executed in 50 years, would you focus your attention on a satisfying prison life before death with no concern for escape or would you focus on escape however unlikely. what is the satisifaction in a temporary, progressively less vibrant life (which is the current human state)? why is it 'safe' to ignore a death sentence? if life is worth living, why would one not explore escaping death (however remote)? is having an interest in staying alive less intelligent than accepting the certainty of death? why?

be a martyr like McVeigh.. or commit suicide.. the only escape is not letting them kill me.

[floid]

The zenith of human evolution will be when there are no more humans on this planet.
We will have run the course of our species and be done, leaving the planet in peace once again.

[floyd]

/be a martyr like McVeigh.. or commit suicide.. the only escape is not letting them kill me./

yes if you like life, kill yourself... that make so much sense.

[Dman]

We will become sadistic little creatures that attempt to manipulate and control our environment and others to our will, consuming more resources than are available to sustain, and ..... oh, wait, you mean the distant future.

Probably evolve into transdimensional beings, preferring to exist beyond our presently known universe, only occasionally popping back in from time-to-time to check on our little hobbies/experiments of seeding worlds with life-giving properties and sit back and watch as they eventually evolve with creatures that over time evolve into transdimensional beings that prefer to exist beyond...

[Chill]

Well

- We won't need our legs anymore since we'll sit down, or use a segway all the time. So they'll just fall off.
- We're going to evolve massive finger-muscles from all the typing we do. We may grow a couple of extra ones, or maybe our legs will even evolve into two extra arms. Anyway, extra fingers!
- Our brains will continue to grow even more, as having a large brain is the best way to ensure your survival as a human.
- The person who is capable of best camouflaging that he was the one who farted in the elevator has more chance of a promotion, so eventually we'll all develop camouflage farts which sound exactly like the person standing next to you in the elevator scraping his throat.

If only evolution worked that way... However, man made bio 'enhancements' just might.

[file cabinet]

/be a martyr like McVeigh.. or commit suicide.. the only escape is not letting them kill me./

yes if you like life, kill yourself... that make so much sense.

I don't think I actually read your entire post when I made my reply.. and on further inspection, your question insinuated the part about liking life.. if I was in prison and doomed to die, life would not be worth living... so I guess in a way I wasn't really answering your question.
in the case of any impending doom, avoiding it any cost would be most desirable but when you're just a rat in a cage life is not headed in any new direction..

[booyalab]

Who's to say that we will have a zenith? It's improbable enough for evolution to have turned out this way, but how much MORE RIDICULOUS, when compared to all possible evolving/not evolving universes(whether they exist in reality or just in our minds)-is it to assume that our particular earth is blessed with a nearly unlimited aggregation of good mutation?

Now THAT'S blind faith.

[booyalab]

It's like the superstitions of the dumb athletes who believe that their hot streak of home runs or 3-pointers will last forever.

[Dman]

Who's to say that we will have a zenith? It's improbable enough for evolution to have turned out this way, but how much MORE RIDICULOUS, when compared to all possible evolving/not evolving universes(whether they exist in reality or just in our minds)-is it to assume that our particular earth is blessed with a nearly unlimited aggregation of good mutation?

Now THAT'S blind faith.

How can you say for certain that it's improbable for evolution to have turned out this way? Have you seen the Hubble deep-field views in supposed "dark" areas of the sky, where even there we see thousands upon thousands of galaxies? I would venture to say that it's improbable, even arrogant, to say that evolution had turned out this way ONLY on our particular planet. Like saying the sun revolves around the earth, it's all about us!

[Dman]

It's like the superstitions of the dumb athletes who believe that their hot streak of home runs or 3-pointers will last forever.

It's not about being dumb, it's about confidence. If they stepped up to plate thinking "ok, it has to end sometime, maybe this is the one that will end it" do you think they'd get very far? Nah - you gotta psyche yourself up! Gotta believe you're invincible, that's what separates the winners from the losers!

[booyalab]

I'm sorry for assuming people know the most basic principles of the evolution debate.
If all possible scenarios for reality were juxtaposed (assuming that EVERYTHING evolutions consider to be true about reality are..and assuming our laws of nature are intact in each scenario), most of the progression in each scenario from beginning to *now* would be in a state of decline. This does not rule out the possibility, theoretically, of there being one which defied the odds of demonstrating the pattern of bad mutations throughout it's history. Now, let's say we remove all of the scenarios that stopped progressing in a general pattern after however many years we've been around has passed. There would still be a few (if not just one) left, but most of them would exhibit a progression that eventually stops. So it's by faith that evolutionists assume we're going to be that lucky one. (not to mention the faith in believing what's happened up to this point)

[booyalab]

It's not about being dumb, it's about confidence. If they stepped up to plate thinking "ok, it has to end sometime, maybe this is the one that will end it" do you think they'd get very far? Nah - you gotta psyche yourself up! Gotta believe you're invincible, that's what separates the winners from the losers!

You're right and wrong, I shouldn't have said dumb. I should have said ignorance. (about the laws of chance and digression to the mean)

[CosmicDust]

Who's to say that we will have a zenith? It's improbable enough for evolution to have turned out this way, but how much MORE RIDICULOUS, when compared to all possible evolving/not evolving universes(whether they exist in reality or just in our minds)-is it to assume that our particular earth is blessed with a nearly unlimited aggregation of good mutation?

Now THAT'S blind faith.
Now you're talking.

Evolution only tends to lead to increasing complexity, I think, because of the pumping in of energy by the Sun (to negate the theromdynamic argument against evolution), and the keeping of things that work building up over time as happens with cultural evolution. It's only direction is towards what makes a creature better fit to survive in an environment - adaptation or the potential for it (adaptability), not "progress" from "lower" to "higher" beings. The future direction of human evolution will depend on what challenges we face that our current physical state won't be able to handle but that won't kill off the species altogether...if AIDS were to become more widespread, then evolution would select for humans who develop AIDS more slowly if at all. This could already be happening in Africa. If the genetically average person can deal with all the future challenges except the one that destroys the human race eventually, then we will not evolve, just as cockroaches haven't evolved much for a very long time due to unchanging conditions and an already fairly versatile design.

[EdwinJefferson]

I think whatever you believe is in blind faith. Simply saying 'don't know' is the only answer that is ever going to be known. God will never be found and neither will a 'missing link'. If there were millions of dinosaurs, how many have been found? If the missing link was a small minority, then that minority is going to be even harder (if not impossible to find).

I mean, carbon dating isn't even the safest of methods to date things, as there is no method which has 100% accuracy.

It's all bollocks. The only things that we'll ever know is what happens to us in the future. It's commonly accepted that Western people are getting taller (well.. it is in the UK), and if that is the case, why? Diet most probably, rather than evolution.

Bollocks.

[booyalab]

Now you're talking.

Evolution only tends to lead to increasing complexity, I think, because of the pumping in of energy by the Sun (to negate the theromdynamic argument against evolution),
The reason scientists say that entropy increases in a CLOSED system is because in an open system it can increase or decrease...so it doesn't tell them enough to satisfactorily pinpoint the source of any change in an experiment. This still brings us back to square one, that it boils down to faith and probability. (in other words, is entropy increasing or decreasing? with no apparent answer)

[Dman]

You're right and wrong, I shouldn't have said dumb. I should have said ignorance. (about the laws of chance and digression to the mean)

Yes, I suppose just another example of when one has to throw logic out the window to trick the brain into doing something physical rather than intellectual.

[Dman]

I'm sorry for assuming people know the most basic principles of the evolution debate.
If all possible scenarios for reality were juxtaposed (assuming that EVERYTHING evolutions consider to be true about reality are..and assuming our laws of nature are intact in each scenario), most of the progression in each scenario from beginning to *now* would be in a state of decline. This does not rule out the possibility, theoretically, of there being one which defied the odds of demonstrating the pattern of bad mutations throughout it's history. Now, let's say we remove all of the scenarios that stopped progressing in a general pattern after however many years we've been around has passed. There would still be a few (if not just one) left, but most of them would exhibit a progression that eventually stops. So it's by faith that evolutionists assume we're going to be that lucky one. (not to mention the faith in believing what's happened up to this point)

I don't exactly follow where you're coming from, but I tend to believe I do have a pretty good grasp of evolution. If you were referring to the exact scenarios that led to precisely where we are in this stage of evolution, then yes, I agree with you. I was thinking more big picture of the possibility of evolution and living beings occuring on another planet. I probably misinterpreted you.

[booyalab]

I don't exactly follow where you're coming from, but I tend to believe I do have a pretty good grasp of evolution. If you were referring to the exact scenarios that led to precisely where we are in this stage of evolution, then yes, I agree with you. I was thinking more big picture of the possibility of evolution and living beings occuring on another planet. I probably misinterpreted you.

I think you're still misinterpreting me. If you DO think big picture, evolution is possible but not probable (within the context of our laws of nature...of course there could be other laws, but that's irrelevant)

[Dman]

Now you're talking.

Evolution only tends to lead to increasing complexity, I think, because of the pumping in of energy by the Sun (to negate the theromdynamic argument against evolution), and the keeping of things that work building up over time as happens with cultural evolution.

Would you mind elaborating a little on that one? For one, evolution does not necessarily lead to increasing complexity. Organisms can just as easily evolve into simpler creatures, provided their environment changes in a way that causes this to be so. I think I'm missing something you're saying.

Also, what the world does the sun's energy have to do with increasing complexity? Aside from the fact that the sun is just one of many other environmental dynamics acting upon organisms.

[Dman]

I think you're still misinterpreting me. If you DO think big picture, evolution is possible but not probable (within the context of our laws of nature...of course there could be other laws, but that's irrelevant)

Let's take it from the beginning, maybe I'll catch on -

first, we need another solar system roughly similar to ours. Then, we need the appropriate elements necessary for life on one of those planets.

How 'm I doin' so far?

[booyalab]

Also, what the world does the sun's energy have to do with increasing complexity? Aside from the fact that the sun is just one of many other environmental dynamics acting upon organisms.

you really do need to read more about this...I don't think any of us want to give background info. Look up: the law of thermodynamics, creationist argument against evolution using it, entropy, -in closed and open systems, evolutionist argument against creationist thermodynamics argument (always involves the sun, very simplistic and mostly spurious), creationist argument against evolutionist argument against creationist thermodynamics argument. *takes a breath*

ugh, I'm not in the mood for this anymore.

[booyalab]

Let's take it from the beginning, maybe I'll catch on -

first, we need another solar system roughly similar to ours. Then, we need the appropriate elements necessary for life on one of those planets.

How 'm I doin' so far?

I'm confused how that relates to anything.
Maybe I'm just tired.

[Dman]

you really do need to read more about this...I don't think any of us want to give background info. Look up: the law of thermodynamics, creationist argument against evolution using it, entropy, -in closed and open systems, evolutionist argument against creationist thermodynamics argument (always involves the sun, very simplistic and mostly spurious), creationist argument against evolutionist argument against creationist thermodynamics argument. *takes a breath*

ugh, I'm not in the mood for this anymore.

I didn't say I knew quite a bit about the arguments AGAINST evolution, but that (I thought) I knew a bit about evolution itself.

Cosmicdust was saying something about the sun's energy causing increasing complexity in evolution. My understanding was that an organism's environment and it's response to it was what caused evolution, not simply the sun's energy.

[Dman]

I'm confused how that relates to anything.
Maybe I'm just tired.

Evolution has to do with organisms, right? Well, what are the origins of organisms? Don't we have to understand that to understand evolution?

So, I'm going back a ways to the origins of evolution. Specifically, the part where our planet formed and contained the necessary fundamental elements for life as we know it to exist. Then life came into being, began to mutate, etc.

With me so far?

I'm assuming that you know the basic principles of evolution in order to understand the basic principles of the debate.

[booyalab]

Evolution has to do with organisms, right? Well, what are the origins of organisms? Don't we have to understand that to understand evolution?

So, I'm going back a ways to the origins of evolution. Specifically, the part where our planet formed and contained the necessary fundamental elements for life as we know it to exist. Then life came into being, began to mutate, etc.

With me so far?

I'm assuming that you know the basic principles of evolution in order to understand the basic principles of the debate.

I didn't know why you said "another solar system"

[CosmicDust]

About the increasing complexity: I agree that creatures can evolve to simpler forms if their environment demands it, but over time, many complex creatures have developed and many creatures have maintained a lot of complexities rather than evolving out of them. What the Sun has to do with it: it pumps energy into the system. I think I said that it invalidates the notion that evolution defies the law of entropy. It's only relevant to the fact that many creatures do become more complex, for whatever reason.

I guess I shouldn't have said evolution "often leads to" increasing complexity because that implies a direct cause...it's more that "many things become more complex as they evolve," a condition that depends on something else to cause it and does not necessarily imply that evolution "progresses" and has a "zenith."

And yes, I know entropy doesn't necessarily have to increase in an open system. It is unknown whether the Universe as a whole is an open or closed system, but the Earth is definitely an open one.

[Edmond Zedo]

Hear me now, and listen to me later. If you read the story I linked to, you'd have INSUFFICIENT QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER DEBATE.

[songbird36]

I find "with me so far"? a little patronising

[KentOhio]

The zenith of human evolution will be when there are no more humans on this planet.
We will have run the course of our species and be done, leaving the planet in peace once again.


That's just a sick sentiment, period. So you want a world with no people. Feeling suicidal?

[ApeTheDog]

I see alternatives.

- Science stops us from evolving. Scientists deem that evolving is a bit shitty and stop mutations.
- Science decides not to wait for mother nature, and writes helpful genes into our blueprint for us. man-made evolution.
- Science figures out destructive brain-scanning, and we all have our minds imported into tiny robots that don't need to eat, drink or take up place.

[Dman]

I find "with me so far"? a little patronising

Sorry, that honestly was not my intention. I went back & re-read my posts & realized I was coming off a bit snotty, but I was trying to understand what was being discussed & was having difficulty communicating. I was off-course.

[Lucas]

How could you ever judge what the zenith of evolution is? Intelligence, biologically, what?

There won't be any major changes selected by nature any time soon because we've created a global ecosystem where almost everyone can pass on their genes, regardless of their positive or negative traits. Nature no longer drives human evolution, in a sense, with our large interconnected gene pool (+6 billion) normal genetic drift can't cause any major changes without the environment selecting certain traits. Human evolution is very stable right now, and will stay that way unless the environment changes.

[Groty]

do you think humans will evolve into supernatural god like entities that can create at will? (do you ever ponder this possibility?)
Frankly, I can't wait to see if my children are born without Wisdom Teeth and little toes. That would be cool!!!

Hmmphh... Create at will. Well, since we can destroy anything down to it's simplest atomic form today, maybe we'll be able to reverse it.

I think evolution will be more forced than anything else. Our bodies are already getting rather troublesome. Eating, sleeping, bathing... Some will question the purpose of a physical world in the future. It may even become a religion.

[jimkopelli]

I see alternatives.

- Science stops us from evolving. Scientists deem that evolving is a bit shitty and stop mutations.
- Science decides not to wait for mother nature, and writes helpful genes into our blueprint for us. man-made evolution.
- Science figures out destructive brain-scanning, and we all have our minds imported into tiny robots that don't need to eat, drink or take up place.

Evolution is being slowed... because we're able to keep people in the gene pool that wouldn't survive otherwise... thank you medical science. #1 is happening somewhat.

#2 is possible, and more likely, and I would welcome it, even though it's probably too late for any of us to get it. In vitro gene modification could lead to some interesting things... if there weren't people screaming "ethics, ethics" at the top of their lungs to drown out "progress, progress" Not that I advocate deliberately trying to end up with monstrosities with tentacles and stuff... but I think we should at least try.

3? Maybe. I wouldn't want to be a brain in a jar, (albeit an electronic jar) and I don't really know anyone who would. Is that really evolution? Or a form of whole body prosthesis?

[mgb]

I haven't read the other posts, so feel free not to read this one...

I just bought the anime version of Metropolis. I haven't seen it in a while but it got me to thinking about robots. Seems to me there is a strong collection of science fiction writers (ok, I can't prove they are strong) that has the idea that robots may one day be our predecessors. Specifically the evolution we will initially guide them through, starting off with developing feelings and emotions. Once that happens, we are in trouble.

[jimkopelli]

I dunno. I think enough of the people who would be in the position to make advancements in robotology have seen/read enough popular scifi that deals with this dilemma so as to build in safeguards... or at least the three (four) laws of Asimov. Race spawning another race... can something nonliving be created/elevated to have life, or will it merely be a semblance? Is it life if it has an on/off switch? Silicon rather than carbon, feeds on batteries, and... thinks? Processes? I don't think robots will become life.

[ApeTheDog]

3? Maybe. I wouldn't want to be a brain in a jar, (albeit an electronic jar) and I don't really know anyone who would. Is that really evolution? Or a form of whole body prosthesis?

It wouldn't be a prosthesis; the contents of your brain would get scanned and be copied into a robots electronic brain. Your human body would cease to exist alltogether.

Is that evolution? I think so, yes. Robots are capable of things people will never be able to do. Their flawless memory, their immortality, their speed... They would be a higher species measured by all relevant parameters.

[jimkopelli]

But I don't think that that would be human evolution, just seeing how (fast/strong/flawless(ha!)/immortal(though they'd need repairs, tuneups... what about upgrades?)) we can build robots with human thought processes. Much of humanity is having glands... would you be able to do complex chemical effects to a program?

Also... Would your body absolutely have to cease existance? What if there was a form of brain scan/copy/paste that didn't involve a blender? What about having a robotic copy of yourself? You might get an inferiority complex (due to not being as...well, see above paren) but you wouldn't have to be oiled and stuff. I dunno.

Robots would still be what we made them, and I still don't think that living and nonliving things share the same definition of evolution. Currently, living things evolve through unconcious, natural selection. Nonliving things (computers, robots, cars, the toothbrush, etc) evolve through concious effort by living things, mainly humans. Living things are continuously evolving, nonliving things evolve only when we put forth time and effort.

We're making us faster, stronger, and longer living, the old fashioned way... who can say what our limits are, once we see what other ways we can use?

[ApeTheDog]

Well, you would not need chemical effects anymore. You could surely make an electronic version that accomplishes the same thing, or drop it. There's no chemical effect that a CPU can't also do.

Destructive scanning already exists, whilst non-destructive scanning is still a good leap away. So it may be possible, one day, to make a robotic copy of your brain and live, but it's not guaranteed like with destructive scanning.

This is from an article by Ray Kurzweil:


The most immediately accessible way to accomplish this is through destructive scanning: we take a frozen brain, preferably one frozen just slightly before rather than slightly after it was going to die anyway, and examine one brain layer – one very thin slice – at a time. We can readily see every neuron and every connection and every neurotransmitter concentration represented in each synapse-thin layer.

Human brain scanning has already started. A condemned killer allowed his brain and body to be scanned and you can access all 10 billion bytes of him on the Internet. He has a 25 billion byte female companion on the site as well in case he gets lonely. This scan is not high enough resolution for our purposes, but then we probably don’t want to base our templates of machine intelligence on the brain of a convicted killer, anyway.

But scanning a frozen brain is feasible today, albeit not yet at a sufficient speed or bandwidth, but again, the Law of Accelerating Returns will provide the requisite speed of scanning, just as it did for the human genome scan.

They would be what we made them, at first, yes. But soon robot scientists with a robotic brain would start making far better improvements, and they would no longer be what we made them, but what they made themselves.

As for the difference in how living and non-living things evolve, I'd say that the purpose of evolution is making better, stronger animals, not about following a certain procedure. Evolution is the goal, and this different procedure is merely another way of accomplishing it.

[floid]

It wouldn't be a prosthesis; the contents of your brain would get scanned and be copied into a robots electronic brain. Your human body would cease to exist alltogether.

Is that evolution? I think so, yes. Robots are capable of things people will never be able to do. Their flawless memory, their immortality, their speed... They would be a higher species measured by all relevant parameters.

A brain is nothing but another organ in a body.
No more you or containing the essence of you than your large intestine. (Unless you're full of it like I am) --SFB ;P

Copying the contents of a scanned human brain into a robotic "brain" would give it about as much intelligence as dumping the contents of a large intestine onto it.

Your body (brain included) is the tool with which you interact with the physical universe, nothing more.

Your brain could be removed from your skull and pureed in a blender and you would still be you. (Probably more "YOU" than you are now tooling around in your space/time cart)

You would, however, have lost your interface with the physical universe.
People who only perceive the physical universe (those unable to be aware of reality outside of space/time) would therefore assume that "you" no longer existed.

But they would be quite wrong.

Take a look: Pam Reynolds (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html)

[mgb]

But I don't think that that would be human evolution, just seeing how (fast/strong/flawless(ha!)/immortal(though they'd need repairs, tuneups... what about upgrades?)) we can build robots with human thought processes. Much of humanity is having glands... would you be able to do complex chemical effects to a program?

Also... Would your body absolutely have to cease existance? What if there was a form of brain scan/copy/paste that didn't involve a blender? What about having a robotic copy of yourself? You might get an inferiority complex (due to not being as...well, see above paren) but you wouldn't have to be oiled and stuff. I dunno.

Robots would still be what we made them, and I still don't think that living and nonliving things share the same definition of evolution. Currently, living things evolve through unconcious, natural selection. Nonliving things (computers, robots, cars, the toothbrush, etc) evolve through concious effort by living things, mainly humans. Living things are continuously evolving, nonliving things evolve only when we put forth time and effort.

We're making us faster, stronger, and longer living, the old fashioned way... who can say what our limits are, once we see what other ways we can use?

Humans are bound by a slow "evolutionary" process. It is what has gotten us to where we are but it will also lead to our inevitable demise. We just aren't able to adapt fast enough to environments to be sustainable forever. By this I mean that we can't stand naked in the cold or live at the bottom of the sea without some sort of protection. We have basic needs, food, water, shelter, clothing and air that need to be met. So far we have been able to gather the resources needed to meet those basic needs but cataclysmic change or even planet change may render us unable to atain our basic needs and we will meet a quick demise. Robots can do in two generations what takes us thousands or even millions.


Our best chance to leave a lasting legacy is to create our replacements and hope they remember us.

[Robespierre]

Humans are bound by a slow "evolutionary" process. It is what has gotten us to where we are but it will also lead to our inevitable demise. We just aren't able to adapt fast enough to environments to be sustainable forever. By this I mean that we can't stand naked in the cold or live at the bottom of the sea without some sort of protection. We have basic needs, food, water, shelter, clothing and air that need to be met. So far we have been able to gather the resources needed to meet those basic needs but cataclysmic change or even planet change may render us unable to atain our basic needs and we will meet a quick demise. Robots can do in two generations what takes us thousands or even millions.


Our best chance to leave a lasting legacy is to create our replacements and hope they remember us.

"I don't want to remember anything.. You here me? NOTHING!" from The Matrix

[floyd]

i think human evolution will get faster and faster, barring massive natural/man made disasters/annihilation.

who cares about legacy? really when you are dead what's the point.

i don't buy into the whole robo-paranoia, artificial intelligence surmounting man... the essence of humanity is individual will and that can't be duplicated in a machine. technology is a manifestation of human will/intelligence.

the human body has healing/morphing/mutating capability. i would speculate that those functions will get enhanced as evolution progresses.

/Evolution is being slowed... because we're able to keep people in the gene pool that wouldn't survive otherwise.../

this would slow natural selection, but scores on non verbal iq tests are rising 9 -15 points per generation, there is more to evolution than natural selection.

[Edmond Zedo]

i think human evolution will get faster and faster, barring massive natural/man made disasters/annihilation.

who cares about legacy? really when you are dead what's the point.

i don't buy into the whole robo-paranoia, artificial intelligence surmounting man... the essence of humanity is individual will and that can't be duplicated in a machine. technology is a manifestation of human will/intelligence.
Let me speak as if I'm certain. I'm confident.

The opposite is true. If there is a disaster which annihilates civilization, evolution will become valid again. If there is no disaster, technology will eventually be able to recreate, then surpass the capabilities of the human mind, and biological evolution will be meaningless for humans in this society. Robots could inherit the Earth.

[floyd]

do you honestly think robots could have as much sustainability, flexibility as humans?

[Edmond Zedo]

do you honestly think robots could have as much sustainability, flexibility as humans?
Of course. Once computers can think as humans but better, design quality would increase with great speed. Additionally, robots wouldn't all have the same physical shape or state of mind.

[KentOhio]

On a less technical note, people with blond hair are becoming extinct, as blond hair is caused by a recessive gene. The year when there will cease to be blond people has been scientifically forecast. Bonus points to anyone who finds the article.

[mgb]

i think human evolution will get faster and faster, barring massive natural/man made disasters/annihilation.

who cares about legacy? really when you are dead what's the point.

i don't buy into the whole robo-paranoia, artificial intelligence surmounting man... the essence of humanity is individual will and that can't be duplicated in a machine. technology is a manifestation of human will/intelligence.

the human body has healing/morphing/mutating capability. i would speculate that those functions will get enhanced as evolution progresses.

/Evolution is being slowed... because we're able to keep people in the gene pool that wouldn't survive otherwise.../

this would slow natural selection, but scores on non verbal iq tests are rising 9 -15 points per generation, there is more to evolution than natural selection.

And what is the essence of humanity? Why can't it be duplicated? We are essentially just machines, very complicated ones, but still just machines.

Of course individual will can be duplicated. More importantly, once duplicated it can also be left out or turned off. Robots can act like humans or bugs, or animals for that matter. They can do anything they are built to do, at the flick of a switch.

There is enough information on the internet to score off the charts on an IQ test. If you had a large enough memory and fast enough processors a computer could out score any human on any test. That is today. Robots just have to begin to move around. We already have artificial intelligence. Its not just science fiction.

[Warrior413]

On a less technical note, people with blond hair are becoming extinct, as blond hair is caused by a recessive gene. The year when there will cease to be blond people has been scientifically forecast. Bonus points to anyone who finds the article.
Mmm bonus points. According to this it's a rumor. (http://www.super-hair.net/extinct.html) ;P

[floyd]

infinitely dynamic, flexible decision making and dynamic sensory/intellectual pleasure capacity would be the essence of why i don't think a robot take over would happen. even if they did take over, a robot society would have less long term sustainability than a biological species because it would only have as much dynamic potential as was programmed into it. i think a genetically engineered mutant takeover would be vastly more likely.

[mgb]

infinitely dynamic, flexible decision making and dynamic sensory/intellectual pleasure capacity would be the essence of why i don't think a robot take over would happen. even if they did take over, a robot society would have less long term sustainability than a biological species because it would only have as much dynamic potential as was programmed into it. i think a genetically engineered mutant takeover would be vastly more likely.

Aren't robots more infinitely dynamic? They can be created to survive anywhere, in any conditions, and under much more extreme circumstances than humans. As for decision making, look at chess. Humans can still compete with robots right now. But chess is a finite game with a finite number of games. As the game progresses there becomes less and less choices for how the game will progress. As computers get faster and faster and have more and more storage space they will inevitably be able to beat humans (or stalemate) every single game. Apply that to real life and give robots the ability to learn from mistakes and the programming argument falls away because they will be able to add and change programming as they see fit, the way humans do.

[floyd]

"They can be created to survive anywhere"

that's the problem unless a robot can program itself and alter itself with infinite dynamic potential (self create) i don't think it can really compete in an infinitely variable environment. robots being less biological are more limited in evolutionary changeability.

[mgb]

"They can be created to survive anywhere"

that's the problem unless a robot can program itself and alter itself with infinite dynamic potential (self create) i don't think it can really compete in an infinitely variable environment. robots being less biological are more limited in evolutionary changeability.

I'm really not sure what you mean when you say that that its a problem that they can survive anywhere. Humans certainly can't and I would give the advantage to robots for that reason.

Robots aren't limited at all in evolutionary changeability. The next generation, can conceivably be made the next day with completely different traits than a generation made the day before. Humans take millenia to change insignificantly.

[Edmond Zedo]

"They can be created to survive anywhere"

that's the problem unless a robot can program itself and alter itself with infinite dynamic potential (self create) i don't think it can really compete in an infinitely variable environment. robots being less biological are more limited in evolutionary changeability.
I must not be clear. Let me try again. Suppose someone with an IQ of 200 is a lot more intellectually capable than two people with an IQ of 100 each. I think that's true. Now suppose a computer system is developed in 50 years with an IQ of 400, and soon that computer designs a new computer with an IQ of 800. What kind of robots do you think that computer would design? We have no idea.

[floyd]

why would that computer design a new computer?

[songbird36]

and how could a computer programmed with a theoretical IQ of 400 design one with an IQ of 800?

[Claverhouse]

Quite.

Anyway, what practical purpose would all these robots have, except to design each other; and why would anyone think them preferable to supersede us ? May we detect our old friend the Death Wish blinking shyly here ?

Machines are made to do jobs for us: they are only machines.

Even more importantly, machines ( aka robots ) will always have two very complete flaws: they are not self-sustaining as animals ( aka us ) are, living as autonomous self-sufficient beings maintained on available food, water & air. All you have to do is turn the electricity off and they stop.

Secondly, they have no appetites: desire may be the root cause of suffering, but without it we have no earthly purpose. Robots and computers can only have such wishes as they are programmed to have: which effectively means they only have the desires of their creator/master*. They have no purpose in existing for themselves. Humans ( their superiors ) do.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Yeah, we may be the robots of God, but let's not go down that road. ]

[ edit: forgot to mention: they can't reproduce, can take neither pleasure nor pride in reproducing ( which is the reason animals have carried on in a direct line of parenthood ), and thus have another of the Imperatives lost to them. ]

[Edmond Zedo]

Desire can be programmed.

The human brain is just a mass of electrical connections. There is no scientific reason to assume replicating it is impossible--Just complicated. And no reason to assume it can't be bettered. Pick your criteria, it could be done.

Once you have a competent AI which you've programmed to design AI and robots, to design AI and robots, and so on, advancement of AI and robotics becomes exponential.

[Edmond Zedo]

Quite.

Anyway, what practical purpose would all these robots have, except to design each other; and why would anyone think them preferable to supersede us ? May we detect our old friend the Death Wish blinking shyly here ?

Machines are made to do jobs for us: they are only machines.

Even more importantly, machines ( aka robots ) will always have two very complete flaws: they are not self-sustaining as animals ( aka us ) are, living as autonomous self-sufficient beings maintained on available food, water & air. All you have to do is turn the electricity off and they stop.

Secondly, they have no appetites: desire may be the root cause of suffering, but without it we have no earthly purpose. Robots and computers can only have such wishes as they are programmed to have: which effectively means they only have the desires of their creator/master*. They have no purpose in existing for themselves. Humans ( their superiors ) do.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Yeah, we may be the robots of God, but let's not go down that road. ]

[ edit: forgot to mention: they can't reproduce, can take neither pleasure nor pride in reproducing ( which is the reason animals have carried on in a direct line of parenthood ), and thus have another of the Imperatives lost to them. ]
If you're talking about today's robots, you're right on all counts. If you're talking about potential robots, you're wrong on all counts.

Reason to build them? Some of us have a desire to innovate and excel, not necessarily taking eventuality into serious consideration.

Only machines? We are only machines. Emotions could easily be present in complex AI.

Flaws? Self-sustenance is a hell of a lot more real today than emotions in robots, and very simple. Imagine a robot than ran on 9V batteries and constructed of basic hardware. It could refuel and repair at Wal-Mart. Of course, I'd expect autonomous robots of the future to use nuclear power.

[coffeezombie]

Yeah, I agree with you, Edmond. Personally I think it's a mistake for humans to create a machine with more overall intelligence than they have -- that's like purposely putting yourself on the wrong end of the food chain. But some human will do it someday if we don't destroy our own civilization first.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[sasapurdue]

For some reason this thread makes me think of this book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil.

[Helios]

Me.



Claverhouse :ph34r:



Damn you! That was my reply.............at least I thought to skim thru first to be sure no one was so clever prior to me. But alas, you had been!

[deus.ex.machina]

For some reason this thread makes me think of this book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil.

great book!

Also, I have read several places that he is an INTP (although ENTP sounds more appropriate). He does have a habit of comming up with ill inventions, selling the patents and inventing something else though. IMO he is definetely one of the most inventive human beings currently alive.

[kuranes]

Reminds me of Olaf Stapledon's book "The Last and First men." I agree with Zedo and Mgbradsh that it can be done someday. It seems that that date is still far enough away that the experts aren't putting any guesstimates of it out yet.

[Star Cannon]

The human brain is just a mass of electrical connections. There is no scientific reason to assume replicating it is impossible--Just complicated. And no reason to assume it can't be bettered. Pick your criteria, it could be done.

~ Edmond Zedo


I seriously disagree with that statement. The function of the human brain seems (to me) to be more akin to a conductor than an actual computer. Something doesn't get through if it's damaged. Ever hear of the statement, "The lights are on but no body's home."? that suggests the mind is seperate from the brain and the brain is only... a conduit of some sort. An initiative conclusion taken from an obscure source, yes, but that is what I believe.

Now, as for this topic of human 'zenith'...

We certianly haven't reached it yet. and I don't we're going to if we don't help protect this planet from the damn world leaders than intend on exploiting it.

But what if? I like the idea of human cyborgs. Just imagine the customization possibilities! It'd be so cool to have glowing platemail attached to a metal frame for aesthetic purposes.

The other idea of a 'trans-dimensional' human... It sounds similar to some other stuff I've read.