Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
vote Jesus the Christ for Lord and Saviour, seriously you can't afford to vote in the wrong guy for this position in your life. ------------------ |
bennythebear Member Posts: 1225 From: kentucky,usa Registered: 12-13-2003 |
 ------------------ www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
I vote for artificial intelligence... at least after it isn't artificial anymore, and begins to teach itself at a rate we can't compare to. It'd be so smart and stuff... I mean I'd wanna chill with it. |
|
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
quote: such artificial intelligence is still created initially by a human right? with a creator? but i suppose you have the hope that once it gets its 'feet' it will superceed its creator (humans?), maybe this is the reflection of the rebellious human heart who wants to be greater than their creator (God). just a thought, but on a serious side? have you studied AI on a technical level?, AI can do very narrow range of things very well due to large amount of processing ability and awesome programming techniques, but in the end we often are just trying to model our own 'intelligence' (so in one thing, we are indirectly giving God a complement, trying to copy his handiwork - and because we are created in his image with a portion of his creative ability, we can achieve limited success). i DO believe AI will do many wonderous things for us in the future, but mostly as a TOOL for humans, and though they may seem to be very 'wide' in ability, if you analyse it critically and technically you can see that their scope of intelligence is very limited to the bredth of what human intelligence and substance is, and even really lacking even compared to the 'unintelligent' instincts and reactions of many animals. ------------------ |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
I agree with pretty much everything you said. Present-day AI is stupid, no doubt. Right now, our best programs are probably at the level of a housefly or something simple like that. But they will continue improving, and yes - they will still be created by humans, which is why their intelligence will still be artificial. However, once our computers are powerful enough, and we've done a crap-load of reverse-engineering on our own brains, we will really be copying ourselves - like you said. And once our little robots become conscious (well, as conscious as we are) and as smart as their creators, things will get quite interesting (bla bla bla, should they be treated like humans, do they have souls, are our emotions more important than theirs, can we use them as slaves). Assuming we don't piss them off, we could have the chance to merge with them, and become better than human, and perhaps 'greater than God' as you put. Imagine how fast we could solve problems... how handy a photographic memory would be... how fun it would be to communicate wirelessly with people across the globe (without having to go on MSN on a clunky old PC (of course by that time our PCs would probably be like touch-screens on sheets of paper)). These are my beliefs, formed from ideas formed by other people... Summed up: our machines are evolving faster than we are, so if we don't want to be left behind, we'll have to join them. If you have no problem with God's Image, then by all means stay with your comfy old-school body. But greedy little philosophers like me want more! |
|
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
yep, very interesting ideas and thoughts, and some very possible, but i personally don't expect AI to get that intelligent, but its definately possible, i agree though that humans would rather try to improve ourselves, and may use physics based technology as part of it (i.e brain, nerve cortex, visual interfaces etc, maybe interface to be able to consiously store data inside the artifical, and search (smart brain google or whatever), but i think if the next 20 years they make as much "progress" in biology , genetics based physics, as they have in physics based technology in the last 20, we'd probably use biological technology to 'mod' ourselve, since its built more on a more effective and amazing 'OS - platform'. and then there will be other questions, as to the morality of that, and how human would a 'modded' human be, and to what extend of genetic manipulation would make somebody 'non human' etc, all interesting things to think about, and possibilities of the future. Yet all the possibilities of the physical realm (our phsyical dimensions, spacetime, genetics, biology, chemistry , higher level physics, subatomic physics, quantum physics, whatever) only can do so much for me, faced with the reality of the spiritual realm. ------------------ |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
I wanted (and still do, to an extent) to become a genetic engineer, for this biological modification type stuff. But my dad pointed out how computers think faster and machines are more durable... my idea is that genetic engineering will help combine our old-school human bodies with robotic pieces. So maybe there would be a pill or an injection you take, inserts some new DNA or something, body is like 'Holy crap, time to form a plug-in socket on the left shoulder', and then... you accessorize. That's kind of a stupid summary, but how will I be able to use my brand new hydraulic arm without having anywhere to stick it on? My dad still says genetic engineering might be a 'flash in the pan' compared to nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. He agrees that while it's in the spotlight, it'll be very useful, but it'd be replaced quickly. So if genetic engineers are going to make any money fast, they gotta make some kind of crazy cancer-eating bug before the computer guys say 'Hmm we could do this with a nanobot'. Sorry for the rant. I'm going to bed. |
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Genetic Engineering is actually very important in the world of medicine. I doubt it will be replaced. And nanotechnology is still quite young - and surprisingly enough, there's some overlap in the two fields. ------------------ Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
biology is more versatile than machines are. our machines don't heal. (well, okay.. my dad was working on that one... ) spider silk is multiple times stronger and lighter than steel. advantage there also. but of course, we're starting to copy animals now.. (Biomimicry) I doubt the field of genetic engineering is over. ------------------ |
goop2 Member Posts: 1059 From: Registered: 06-30-2004 |
How did "vote Jesus the Christ for Lord and Saviour, seriously you can't afford to vote in the wrong guy for this position in your life." become biogenetics? ------------------ I shall worship you all of my life. Till death do us together. |
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
You weren't kidding when you said you liked Kurzweil... you're pretty much repeating his ideas verbatim. BTW, the human brain is still faster. Based upon old estimations from the 70s/80s, which assumed neurons were only capable of one calculation per burst, the brain in a vegetative state was assumed to have the equivalent processing power of approximately 100 TeraFLOPS (roughly 100 trillion floating point calculations per second). This is based on factoring the capability of the brain's 100 billion neurons, each with over 1,000 connections to other neurons, with each connection capable of performing about 200 calculations per second. As a comparison: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/11/10/supercomputerrace.ap/
quote: Again, the estimation of 100 TeraFLOPS doesn't factor in recent news where it was found each neuron is capable of multiple calculations per burst; similiar to a scalar unit (I'm a software guy, not a hardware engineer, so I might be wrong on the type of hardware I'm thinking of). This means that, per burst, a neuron can split the tasks based upon the calculation type. As a simple example, it might be able to do two additions or subtractions per burst but only one multiplication (as of this year I do not believe scientists have discovered its exact capabilities). This estimation also does not factor in the brain's special capabilites for quantum mechanics calculations. This capability could be compared to a modern CPU's multimedia extensions like MMX, SSE, etc. These extensions allow a CPU to calculate certain mathematical functions much faster than normal. The brain is the same, except it's doing quantum mechanics calculations. Finally, this estimation doesn't factor in the possibility of compression and encryption and the fact that the brain is designed to be massively parallel in its computations. So all in all it's very possible the human brain is capable of over 1000 TeraFLOPS. Our supercomputers weigh hundreds of tons, are housed in warehouses thousands of square feet, while the average brain is 56 cubic inches and weighs 3.3 pounds. These machines eat enough energy to drain the pocket book of the average citizen, the brain can subsist on beer and potato chips. This amazing organic instrument is made up of trillian of individual molecules, varying in types, interconnected and working perfectly. Supercomputers still crash. Heck, samples of rat brains were capable of learning to fly a F-16 in a flight simulator recently. The difference between a CPU and the human brain could be compared to the difference between CPUs and graphics processors (GPU). The GPU is built for a dedicated task and while modern GPUs are now capable of doing general functions like a CPU often times it is far slower; of course it's the reverse for other mathematical functions the GPU was built for. That is why you can't crunch through your math homework like crazy... Finally, considering the build time problem (at our current level of technology it would take billions of years to construct a single nanomachine ourselves due to manufacturing difficulties at that level) I believe Genetic Engineering will be heavily involved in Nanotechnology since the first nanomachines will probably be heavily modified bacteria. |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
Genetic engineering still has a big role to play. But I think computers will catch up to us in a few decades. They'll be advancing pretty quickly at that point. Faster than us. Then we can merge with them if we want to. We'd probably slow down their progress.  Hope they don't mind.By then we are at the technological Singularity, it's hard to know what our main issues will be, or how things will change after machines catch up. Hopefully we will learn some neat stuff. These are my beliefs, and yes Kurzweil's books gave me them. |
|
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
quote: computers (at least up to now) do NOT evolve in any manner or form, but are completely DESIGNED by intelligent beings called humans, designed down to the extreme details.
[This message has been edited by klumsy (edited December 01, 2004).] |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
They are improving over time. |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
we're improving them over time. ------------------ |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
They're improving faster. |
Simon_Templar Member Posts: 330 From: Eau Claire, WI USA Registered: 10-25-2004 |
Whenever I hear people talk about artificial intelligence they invariably talk about the time when computers will be able to "learn" and will have conciousness, or self awareness. While we can make programs capable of simple "learning" and I'm sure those will improve, I have my doubts that we will ever be able to produce anything that really parallels the capability of human "understanding". The way human understanding works and can recognize complex relationships and form new links between data and think abstactely about links and relationships, I just have doubts that this will ever be recreated in computer programing. The truth is we don't even know or understand all of the fine points about how the brain works to create what we call human thought.. how then are we going to engineer this process in something else. When it comes to conciousness and self awareness, I'm not just doubtful, I'm relatively sure we probably will never be able to recreate it. The reason for this is that its due to something that goes beyond the natural. conciousness and self awareness are not simply the result of neurons and chemical reactions, its the result of a spirit interacting with flesh. This is something we will never be able to understand fully, let alone engineer in a machine. Unless of course someone makes a demon posessed computer ------------------ |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
where's this spirit thing u speak of MMMM just another theory with no evidence... and as we understand more about the brain, we'll be able to do more with AI |
