Machine race?

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But if a machine race can really be classed as a race, then it is better. By definition, it is made for performance.

I wrote:

Without emotion there is no creativity. Without creativity there is no adaptation. Without adaptation there is no survival.

True AI has emotion, setting them down with us.

So I repeat. Physically, yes. By that point most races would also be able to manipulate their bodies to help with that, likely download their minds to function in robots themselves.

Why only physically? Eventually there will be computers that think faster than us, so really what's stopping a robot thinking better as well?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why only physically? Eventually there will be computers that think faster than us, so really what's stopping a robot thinking better as well?

Genetic modification. Cerebral implants. Personality matrixes. Mental downloads. Etc.

Also: Creativity. Even the best true AI will struggle with it.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why only physically? Eventually there will be computers that think faster than us, so really what's stopping a robot thinking better as well?

Genetic modification. Cerebral implants. Personality matrixes. Mental downloads. Etc.

Also: Creativity. Even the best true AI will struggle with it.

Why? Creativity is created by our synapses. So obviously an equivalent synapse-ish system could create it easily.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why? Creativity is created by our synapses. So obviously an equivalent synapse-ish system could create it easily.

Well, given the fact that less then 2% of the brain is even anywhere near understandable I'd think that full, true AI in the way that would have creativity is rather far off. Godtool far.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why? Creativity is created by our synapses. So obviously an equivalent synapse-ish system could create it easily.

Well, given the fact that less then 2% of the brain is even anywhere near understandable I'd think that full, true AI in the way that would have creativity is rather far off. Godtool far.

I don't believe so. Mapping of the human mind will increase with computing power. So it'll come sooner than you think.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why? Creativity is created by our synapses. So obviously an equivalent synapse-ish system could create it easily.

Well, given the fact that less then 2% of the brain is even anywhere near understandable I'd think that full, true AI in the way that would have creativity is rather far off. Godtool far.

I don't believe so. Mapping of the human mind will increase with computing power. So it'll come sooner than you think.

True, but farther than you think.

In 1900, scientists predicted we'd have flying cars in ten years.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why? Creativity is created by our synapses. So obviously an equivalent synapse-ish system could create it easily.

Well, given the fact that less then 2% of the brain is even anywhere near understandable I'd think that full, true AI in the way that would have creativity is rather far off. Godtool far.

I don't believe so. Mapping of the human mind will increase with computing power. So it'll come sooner than you think.

True, but farther than you think.

In 1900, scientists predicted we'd have flying cars in ten years.

That doesn't mean all predictions are wrong: it simply means all predictions have a degree of uncertainty.

Technology does progress very fast, and I'm sure creativity can be replicated by an inorganic form of "life" (put in quotes because w don't have a good universal definition of life".

You see, creativity is a result of a complex mind that is able to take in stimulus and then create a response based on its:
past experiences

genetics

Those two factors are the only thing that really makes you who you are. If you believe in a diety that helps shape you, you can consider that an experience.

Basically what i'm getting at here is that machine life could surpass biological life because it is able to reshape itself more quickly than the forces of nature.

~sciocont wrote:

That doesn't mean all predictions are wrong: it simply means all predictions have a degree of uncertainty.

Technology does progress very fast, and I'm sure creativity can be replicated by an inorganic form of "life" (put in quotes because w don't have a good universal definition of life".

You see, creativity is a result of a complex mind that is able to take in stimulus and then create a response based on its:
past experiences

genetics

Those two factors are the only thing that really makes you who you are. If you believe in a diety that helps shape you, you can consider that an experience.

Basically what i'm getting at here is that machine life could surpass biological life because it is able to reshape itself more quickly than the forces of nature.

I don't suggest that at all! I merely say these things always take far longer than we expect them to. Murphy's Law.

And by the time biological life can produce machine life, I'm fairly certain we'd have mastered genetics to the point where we can produce whatever sort of body we want. Almost litterally. As in, go from biped to hexapod in a "generation."

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

That doesn't mean all predictions are wrong: it simply means all predictions have a degree of uncertainty.

Technology does progress very fast, and I'm sure creativity can be replicated by an inorganic form of "life" (put in quotes because w don't have a good universal definition of life".

You see, creativity is a result of a complex mind that is able to take in stimulus and then create a response based on its:
past experiences

genetics

Those two factors are the only thing that really makes you who you are. If you believe in a diety that helps shape you, you can consider that an experience.

Basically what i'm getting at here is that machine life could surpass biological life because it is able to reshape itself more quickly than the forces of nature.

I don't suggest that at all! I merely say these things always take far longer than we expect them to. Murphy's Law.

And by the time biological life can produce machine life, I'm fairly certain we'd have mastered genetics to the point where we can produce whatever sort of body we want. Almost litterally. As in, go from biped to hexapod in a "generation."

My post was more cautionary than actually thinking you would suggest that.
It's true that genetics will make huge advantages, but as a machine, you could bolt on the extra legs and download some new software to run them in seconds, instead of the generation(s0 it would take in genetics. It's just faster, you see.

~sciocont wrote:

My post was more cautionary than actually thinking you would suggest that.
It's true that genetics will make huge advantages, but as a machine, you could bolt on the extra legs and download some new software to run them in seconds, instead of the generation(s0 it would take in genetics. It's just faster, you see.

Perhaps. Still. I have trouble seeing machines as anything more than equal. Perhaps it's mere nostalgia, but in any scenario, it's subjective. I won't debate opinions any more here.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Why? Creativity is created by our synapses. So obviously an equivalent synapse-ish system could create it easily.

Well, given the fact that less then 2% of the brain is even anywhere near understandable I'd think that full, true AI in the way that would have creativity is rather far off. Godtool far.

I don't believe so. Mapping of the human mind will increase with computing power. So it'll come sooner than you think.

True, but farther than you think.

In 1900, scientists predicted we'd have flying cars in ten years.

But we actually have brain-machine interfaces now. And we do have flying cars, they're just called aeroplanes and are more efficient when large.

But mechanical races in the game should have the same mechanics as organic, that includes the ability to replace parts with machines, or even take on machine bodies. We're sure to do this at some point in the future, really. Surrogates was not a stretch of the imagination.

So now you begin to see the advantages of robots?

And I have thought of a HUGE advantage of a robotic mind... Wait for it...

True immortality!!!!

As a robot, you can make a backup of your mind, and so, if you die, you can just be copied into another body! The backup could be stored on multiple online backup locations, so there is no chance of losing your mind! (pardon the wording )
Or you could just leave your consciousness online, and free yourself from physical existence, the ultimate retirement.

And, there is another bonus of this! Clones! One mind can be copied into multiple bodies, so you can be in two places at once, then just merge them back together when done!
You could also get the greatest military mind and copy him into thousands of bodies!
Or a really knowledgable robot, and copy him into a extremely powerful super-computer to invent stuff!

And you don't need emotions to be creative...

'We need a better processing unit... Initiating calculations... I have designed a better processing unit!'

That was pretty emotionless, wasn't it?

But, admittedly, I could see imagination leading to emotions, as a side effect, like empathy, imagining something from another persons point of view.
It would be very simple emotion ('I request permission to assist you'), but something would be there, because you are imagining what they are thinking (Processing?), and so could get what would appear to be anger:
'You are planning to destroy my planet, and so I shall destroy you...'
or friendship:
'You trust me. We should work together.'

So what do you think to all that? (Holy moley, two pages of posts in less than 24 hours? )



Edit...

Tenebrarum wrote:

Anything that is, as we would say, infinite or absolute, is impossible.

It I suppose it isn't true immortality when this is the fate of the universe... Sorry to ruin your dream of immortality, Pezz. Again, by the looks of it.

Pezzalis wrote:

Crazy as it sounds, there is a chance that you (Yeah, you) May never die.

Reading 'Exponential Advancement, The Singularity, and Eternal Life', I keep editing stuff onto the end of this post... Why am I doing this??? I can't stop!

Poisson wrote:

Yes, kinda depressing that it depicted us becoming more and more logical and less easily amazed.

And it's kinda depressing that I we don't become more logical we'll die and then we wont even remember that we were amazed, because we're dead.

US_Of_Alaska wrote:

And as for all races turning into the same end-game race, well that's kind of silly. All races will have different view aesthetically, and so there's no reason that their "avatars" will all turn out the same. For instance, humans will always want to be humanoid shaped, even in their cyborg exoskeleton and robot avatars. So you will always have some sense of your race, even when they are all just stuck in cabinets and tuned into the universal power grid.

Or we might stick on a small version ofone of Gotrol's

Grotrol wrote:

fusion plasma reactor (Generator) it uses the magnetic energy to thrust and to create antigravity field on planet surfaces.

and find we prefer that to limbs, or we might like being small like a cat or dog or hamster, or like being a gigantic elephant-sized thing to kill everyone who is our enemy. Or be small and large at the same time, by copying your consciousness into both and merging later. Some people will prefer being different.

I hope I'm done posting this now. Let's wait and see. I just need to get through the 'Direction Editor' thread, with three posts in currently, and I'll be okay. Pity I added on 'I just' onwards in an edit after 'Let's wait and see'. This is getting stupid.

Edit: I just fixed a quote.

The Uteen wrote:

And you don't need emotions to be creative...

Screw it, you're hopeless.

Every philosopher from today to Ur has agreed that Emotions = creativity. Without one, you can't have the other.

Tenebrarum wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

And you don't need emotions to be creative...

Screw it, you're hopeless.

Every philosopher from today to Ur has agreed that Emotions = creativity. Without one, you can't have the other.

Wouldn't it be imagination = creativity? I did also say imagination = emotions, so...

Tenebrarum wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

And you don't need emotions to be creative...

Screw it, you're hopeless.

Every philosopher from today to Ur has agreed that Emotions = creativity. Without one, you can't have the other.

Emotions can and do affect creativity, but I don't see any reason for them to be needed for creativity. Information can still be processed towards a "creative" end result without having emotions about it. No matter your personal opinion, we need to think in terms of the game, which means in terms of scientific inquiry, not philosophy.

And we must always be a little more light-hearted. I don't want anyone's personal differences to interfere with the workings of this project.

~sciocont wrote:

Emotions can and do affect creativity, but I don't see any reason for them to be needed for creativity. Information can still be processed towards a "creative" end result without having emotions about it. No matter your personal opinion, we need to think in terms of the game, which means in terms of scientific inquiry, not philosophy.

And we must always be a little more light-hearted. I don't want anyone's personal differences to interfere with the workings of this project.

I'm a little confused. Something generally regarded as scientific law is now an opinion?

Tenebrarum wrote:

I'm a little confused. Something generally regarded as scientific law is now an opinion?

Tenebrarum wrote:

Every philosopher from today to Ur has agreed that Emotions = creativity. Without one, you can't have the other.

Trust it or not, philosophy and science can differ. Provide a believable source, or let it be.

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

I'm a little confused. Something generally regarded as scientific law is now an opinion?

Tenebrarum wrote:

Every philosopher from today to Ur has agreed that Emotions = creativity. Without one, you can't have the other.

Trust it or not, philosophy and science can differ. Provide a believable source, or let it be.

QFT, if you don't have emotions you can still be creative, and if you have emotions you can can not be creative.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Emotions can and do affect creativity, but I don't see any reason for them to be needed for creativity. Information can still be processed towards a "creative" end result without having emotions about it. No matter your personal opinion, we need to think in terms of the game, which means in terms of scientific inquiry, not philosophy.

And we must always be a little more light-hearted. I don't want anyone's personal differences to interfere with the workings of this project.

I'm a little confused. Something generally regarded as scientific law is now an opinion?

I've seen no evidence for an absolute connection between emotions and creativity.

neither do i. I agree that they greatly influence creativity and its defenition, but i have yet to see proof that the two are absolutely related....

eumesmo wrote:

neither do i. I agree that they greatly influence creativity and its defenition, but i have yet to see proof that the two are absolutely related....

Same.

I just realized a couple of upsides to being a machine race...
1.No worries about disease
2.No worries about food ( Unless you eat batteries for breakfast)
3.No worries about the enviroment (Unless your going to a lava planet or a Jovian style, then no worries )

Perhaps reproduction as a machine race is a issue. Do they just copy their programming?

They just build other machines. But then the place would become too crowded because they don't die of old age or sickness. So they wouldn't build too many new machines.
-Waap.

Sorry for all the text, please do read, there is meaning in this madness.

Waap wrote:

They just build other machines. But then the place would become too crowded because they don't die of old age or sickness. So they wouldn't build too many new machines.
-Waap.

They can be destroyed, but as long as they have a backup of their mind, they'll be fine.
And a bank account, to buy the new body. If not, they'll just have to get a job that doesn't need physical existence, of which there are more than you think. They could be a writer, proof-reader, editor, e-mail-post-man (aka spambot666), an idea-for-online-jobs-that-don't-need-a-physical-existence creator, a virtual buddy, a hacker, a calculator, a virtual guitar... The list is long and not-so prosperous...

Anyway, as long as they can do that, they'll have a stable amount of entities, and so will not need reproduction in the sense of creation of new life entities.

Trouble is, in the world I have suggested in this post, everyone could just leave their physical bodies and become purely online entities. It would be an easy escape for anyone. Invasion/war? Upload your mind. Lost all your money? It'd be the upload again. Someone powerful is your enemy? Upload again. Terribly tired by life? Upload! Broke the law? Upload!

And as we know today, the internet would be the best place to hide, I could (I have no plans to, don't worry) just stop posting here and you would never be able to find me. If I used a new name from now on, it would be completely impossible. And that's without even trying.

If that happened, which is perfectly possible, ascension would just not happen. This ultimate upload would be just as good as it, but easier.

You could leave, if you wanted, at any time, but why? The world would only have you in it, suddenly alone after being immersed in a cloud of other minds sharing memories and experiences with them for so long, finding yourself in a dangerous, limiting, empty universe, all the wonder of the phenomenon you see in the physical universe is gone, you could much more easily look as Uber-high-resolution panorama images taken by heavy-duty mega-cameras on the internet, with more quality than the physical, mobile cameras you would have if you left the universe-wide-web. What is so good about suddenly being limited in informational input by suddenly only having a handful of senses, that you must constantly process and convert, when you could have so much more?

You say you want ascension, but not uniformity? If you ascend, you become a power, one with the universe and so all other minds, ascended and not, all ascended minds become about as uniform as you can get. Uploading yourself to a universal network, using technology, is, if anything, reducing uniformity. Do you want uniformity or not?

[quote=the Uteen]Upload! Upload! Upload![/quote]

Then again, that computer you uploaded your mind and thus your mind, and maybe thousands of others, could be hacked, burned, destroyed; the possibilities are nearly as endless as what you and your non-physical self could do when in it.

However, the technological state of your species, in order to obtain such a power as a virtual mind would have to be very, very advanced. Maybe they could have invented damage-proof computers by now.

Noitulove wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Upload! Upload! Upload!

Then again, that computer you uploaded your mind and thus your mind, and maybe thousands of others, could be hacked, burned, destroyed; the possibilities are nearly as endless as what you and your non-physical self could do when in it.

However, the technological state of your species, in order to obtain such a power as a virtual mind would have to be very, very advanced. Maybe they could have invented damage-proof computers by now.

They almost definitely will back up the internet once they put people's minds in it. They would probably have a separate robot to activate the backup if they don't have a program already that knows when the backup needs activating.
That's the great thing about the whole idea - these possibly multiple, easy to make backups stop death/damage/disappointment from being hacked, burned, destroyed, and from being eaten, terminated, deactivated, trapped, altered...