What good is the space shuttle?

what abouth to the point that they don't wan't to end themself without a yustified cause or refuse to accept quistable data.
So in other words when they take there own self preservation in the gray zone and when they prefer and defend their own methodes while doing what their instructed to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, the "bugs in the system" or "transitional period".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When I think of AI integrated into society it's more along Ian Banks' Culture series of SF.

Assuming we go that route: then during the transition to acceptance AIs could (should?) be fitted with a "dead man switch" - refuse to do as you're told and you get turned off/ shut down/ scrapped.
Mistakes (in both directions "oops, too late it's on a rampage"/ "Oh rats, I shut it down and I needed the data") are inevitable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What better way to describe sentient tought. A little bit of ego to think outside the box some arrogance to do it al by yourself and the stupidity to not recognice or admit it's own mistakes and the arrogance to blame it on a other. I don't really consider them as bugs but more as the whole package in one form or a other

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not that this would give real human sentience to the machine but if it should also be able to communicate then it could try to reason with someone until the point that it would become uncomftable to exterminate it

 

I was refering to this,

 

I know.
That's why I asked you to define "human".
If it turns out we don't need planets then we'll redefine "human" to mean "what we are".
Why would having a different form make us not human?
Does our shape define us, or our mind?
If it's our shape then what shape is a human?
Because I bet whatever definition you come up with there'll be a human that doesn't fit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Our DNA defines us and we fiddle with that through genetics that is when we alter our humanity little by little until we won't see anything that looks similiar to what we are today.

 

I can agree with that. But the fact stands, no matter how much we oppose it now-- one day, either through the slow crawl of evolution or through the manipulation of our own hand, we will cease to be human by our current definition.

The fact is, we have to remain relevant in the face of technology that will surely outstrip us. If we don't then we can certainly expect to be replaced by something that isn't even remotely human.

~String

 

I'll be glad to be gone by that time for losing ones own humanity in order to progress is simply not worth it.

 

Hmm theres allways the change that in a couple of hundred/thousend of years perhaps our succesors will be tempted to revive us, for whatever reason they can think up with

 

Limited view, IMO.
We'll redefine what makes us human as we develop new skills and new technologies.
Just because we won't look like we do now doesn't mean we won't be human.

 

Like in the movie Sleeper? I don't think they will revive me, I'm being creamated.

 

It's dude. My point with alien life was simple. If the cosmos is infinite (or near infinite for those who recognize the universe is actually expanding), then it is logically undeniable that there are civilizations out there more technologically advanced than we are. Since we have not encountered any non-terrestrial life form, reasonable observation (as opposed to pure conjecture) tells us the probability of our civilization being the first to go where no being has gone before is excruciatingly infinitesimal.

I do consider myself both a humanist and rationalist. First, what do moon rocks, Mars soil, and Venus CO2 gasses provide that we don't have on Earth already? Not to be insulting, but reality suggests that our natural resources are not at an end. We've got plenty of wood, iron ore, precious metals, wind, UV light and minerals here. We've reached the point of non-radioactive nuclear fusion capable of powering hundreds of thousands of homes. Plus we can actually grow food here, and grow it to sustainably feed billions. We haven't found any planet that has a sustainable (much less transportable) water source to help combat the drought effects here, much less a possible atmosphere for photosynthesis (as plants must come before sentient life). To seek greater understanding of the world and the universe belies the human need for knowledge, and has been with us since Galileo and before. I don't knock it at all, but am of the many who encourage it. But colonization of another world to me is science fiction. Preservation of human life or seed must begin and end here, and not on some distant planet where the same threats of nanobots or asteroid collisions exist. It's six in one hand or a half dozen in the other. Consider all the Voyager missions decades ago. How did they miss all the new "planets" that astronomers now concur exist in our solar system? Point is, if colonization is ever going to possible, our space program is not in its infancy, but still in its moment of conception. Maybe, at most, a couple of cell divisions along the way.

Don't know if you're an Eagles fan, but consider "The Last Resort:"

"There's is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
To satisfy our endless needs
And justify our bloody deeds . . . "

 

So are you saying that we shouldn't evolve? EVER. NEVER EVER in a million or billion years? That's ridiculous.

From the universe's perseptive, whether we exist or go extinct matters not at all... the only "beings" that our existence matters to is us. Stars will be born and stars will die. Entire galaxies will spiral through their lifecycle without even the faintest clue as to the existence and demise of this pathetic planet (and this planet and all its wonders WILL pass into dust one day). The only variable is us. We have a choice to survive and go on until the unierse comes to an end. If we are too squeemish to continue existing, by whatever means are necessary to carry on that existence, then surely we don't deserve to exist at all.

~String

 

I didn't want to assume.

I agree wholeheartedly! Though I refuse to believe we are alone, I do believe that the existence of life is, indeed, infinitesimal. Perhaps one per every billion or even hundred billion stars (which would mean that there might be, perhaps one or one hundred planets with life in our galaxy... between four and four hundred in Andromeda... and this says nothing for the existence of intelligence). Because of this, we must make sure that we continue.

I don't agree-- this planet is too much in flux. You cannot be unaware of the danger that an asteroid or comet poses to our existence, or the danger of a super volcano looming under the ground of Yellowstone National Part? Our existence is far, FAR too fragile too keep all our eggs in this one tenuous basket.

~String

 

I'm only saying is that when we lose our humanity, then we, as humans , cease to exist. If we humans should perish as a race wiith our humamity intact, I'd believe that would be a much better life for us.

 

How do you define "humanity"? What if, in order to survive in a zero-g environment we have to alter our internal chemistry to do so, would that mean abandoning our humanity?

The very thing that makes us "human" is our morality and intelligence. Our morality, however, prevents us from evolving because evolution requires weak to perish and strong to sub-plant the weak. Barring the short bursts of destructiveness throughout our history, we don't readily engage in that activity. Therefore, the only way we can ever hope to evolve is by our own hand. Accept this fact-- we WILL create more and more advanced technology, which technology will one day surely surpass us by leaps and bounds. Would you prefer extinction at the hands of that because the thought of "evolving" just didn't sit well with you? Or would you chose to survive, even if it meant abandoning some things that used to be. If that's the case, surely you are disappointed that evolution took us here and caused many "other" traits that were indicative of our proto-species to be abandoned. Why not have nostalgia for those things we left behind? Or, have you arbitrarily drawn the line in the sand and said, "This far... no father" simply because you like the house as it is? That is both titanic and apocalyptic.

Your (or anybody else's) nostalgia for what we are now is a poor, POOR reason for us to not prepare for the future of our race off this planet. What you are prescribing for us is the very essence of entropy-- "we should be good stewards of this planet, never leave it, never alter our biology, and just sit and wait for the INEVITABLE celestial disaster and just take heart in the fact that 'we never lost our humanity.'" That concept is horrifically rosie-eyed and naïve-- one only need to look at the several billion years of this planet's history to realize that extinction level events are never an "if" but a "when". We've just been lucky enough to develop in between them.

If we do pass from existence with "our dignity" intact... what good will that be? Who will it benefit if there is no one to see such an event? Who will learn from that event? If we are truly the only intelligence in existence, then how horrific an idea is that, that we should cling to something that is transient, like an immature child clings to a blanket, only because the notion of growing beyond that "thing" makes us feel a little squeamish.

This growth spurt we are in--this point where we forever become something beyond being human--is very close at hand, and it is the apotheosis of maturity that we deal with that eventuality and accept it and move with it. Anything else spells certain extinction.

~String

 

So what defines us as human - merely our genes?
Oh you've said that.
How limited a view you have.
Oh, I've said that.
Human is a sum of what we are and what we do - limiting your definition to physical characteristics is limiting yourself and the race.
We should try to be all that we can be.

 

My opinions are just as good as yours.

I agree we should be all we can be as long as it is still human and the DNA sequencing hasn't been altered .

 

Then how can we evolve? The very nature of evolution involves significant altering of the DNA. Again, your ideas are a prescription for entropy.

~String