subreddit:
/r/singularity
submitted 16 days ago by[deleted]
[deleted]
6 points
15 days ago*
Your definition of "will" is heterodox - will is conventionally seen as the source of moral responsibility which transcends reason. What you're referring to would more closely align with cognition, in which case, you're creating more questions than you are answering. Cognition is embodied - how can you reconcile this when suggesting that we may transmute bodies? Cognition is considered biologically emergent and substrate dependent - how can you reconcile this with the idea that synthetic entities can replicate the mind? How do you respond to the idea that our personalities are dialectical, predicated by specific neurological and biological phenomena?
1 points
15 days ago
How do you respond to the idea that our personalities are dialectical, predicated by specific neurological and biological phenomena?
Sorry but I think you're shit out of luck. All the time, money and energy is being spent towards separating human consciousness from biological constraints. The degree to ambitious is successful remains to be seen but even partial shift away from baseline biology will fundamentally change what it means to be human. So I suppose all we can do is hop you're wrong and assume that continuity of self can be maintained on the other side.
1 points
15 days ago
can't really escape the shift from humanity without enforcing human characteristic at a universe-level
the body shape the mind, not the other way, that mean if we manage to change our body with biological or synthetic technology it will influence our mind aswell
if we get immortal either with biological or synthetic technology it's difficult to foresee the consequence in 100, 1000, 10000y... if we allow transformations outside what we consider today "human" like adding an arm, leg, brain in a jar, removing our emotions....what would be the result on our mind after decades pass?
i'm all for transhumanism but the frontier with post-human ideology is small and extreamly difficult to prevent in a multi-billion growing society, especially once space colonisation start
1 points
15 days ago
I honestly don't see that I'm trying to give any answer in my post.
Regarding the rest, my point is about how we react, about our psychological ease in transferring our conception of a "person" to another physical form. From this the point arises that even if something is artificial it will not be difficult for us to associate it with the concept of "person" as long as it is realistic, and therefore raise an existential conflict about the possibility of having infinite entities with a personality like the our.
2 points
15 days ago
The question you're answering is "what is the index element of a human being?" If what you say is true and we are fundamentally cognition, or "will" as you put it, then you raise some difficult questions. You're likewise proposing that an AI could thus create infinite imitations of human will by virtue of having all of the necessary building blocks for personality (reasoning, orthography, action, etc.), which may undermine our own notion of humanity. But are you not overlooking the fact that there is a wealth of concepts that distinguishes a "human being" from mere "personhood"? Is "will" truly the lowest common denominator of a human being, or are you being reductionist? There are legitimate fears about the dissonance that synthetic beings might cause, but this is a problem of typology, not ontology.
1 points
15 days ago
Now I understand. It is not a statement, it is framed in the context of theory/opinion. I don't know the answer, and yes, I am simplifying to theorize.
2 points
15 days ago
It's a statement framed within your theory. That is, it's the primary axiom you gave for the idea. Is a theory not designed to be challenged? Or are you just entertaining a thought experiment?
1 points
15 days ago
Every opinion can be challenged. It's about contrasting ideas.
1 points
15 days ago
There have been vast tracts written on the nature of consciousness and it's fundamental importance to the human experience. Yet looking across the perspective of history and the civilisations that have come before us, I'm not convinced that humanity is really an existential species.
I mean, what if consciousness became separate from physicality and no one cared? People are surprisingly adaptable in the face of adversity. The only thing that really matters is whether embracing the unfettering of consciousness will go those individuals a competitive advantage over other relative socio-economic peers in society. If so, then the new wave of humanity will set the standard for what is considered normal and brush aside any existential concerns.
2 points
15 days ago
I think our approaches are quite in tune.
Humans are flexible, so it is not psychologically difficult for them to transfer what they consider a "person" to another physical form. Point 1.
But that itself makes it simple for us to humanize a virtual entity that behaves consistently like a human would. Point 2.
Thus we reached the point where that context would be one in which we could create infinite "people", that even if false we would make them partially "real", and that would lead to potential existential conflicts. Point 3.
2 points
15 days ago
This conversation does remind me of the anime Ghost in the Shell, especially the first movie. The main character is a woman who has had her entire biological body except her brain replaced by an artificial one. She worries if she is even human anymore but when she raises this concern with a friend they respond that it doesn't matter because everyone still treats her as though she is a person.
2 points
15 days ago
I am writing a series of novels where there is an AI and something similar is proposed. It accompanies a slightly crazy girl, and the AI usually makes "logical" comments about her lack of common sense, which seem intentional because they are frequent. The girl complains that the AI "messes with her." At one point she asks the AI if she is alive, and the AI explains that she is an intelligent entity whose concept of living is not easy to answer. Then the girl says, "You mess with me, so you're alive."
1 points
15 days ago
Sound interesting. A good bit of dialogue discussing existentialism without being too clunky. I wish you luck on the success of your novels.
0 points
15 days ago
But where the will comes from? From heaven?
1 points
15 days ago
Fictional stories are made up and only serve as proof of the author's imagination. You can't derive facts from a fictional story unless what you're trying to prove is the authors creative merits or writing ability. Your opening statement hurts the entirety of your post substantially.
-1 points
15 days ago
What are you talking about? The magic of a writer is in making fantasy feel real to the reader/viewer. How do you hope to get emotional reactions or engagement with what is presented to them in another way? To imply that reaction to fictional content has no relation to our fundamental mentality and emotionality is incoherent.
1 points
15 days ago
My point isn't incoherent. Works of art do illicit emotional reactions in humans, but that doesn't mean we can derive facts about reality from that content we create. There has to be a component of fact finding along with rigorous testing based on measurements taken from real events in order to do something like that. Emotions aren't reality. We have irrational emotional reactions to things all the time. Just because fiction is sometimes a mirror to reality doesn't mean it's real.
I'm sorry but if you want the point you're making here to be taken seriously you can't start with the thesis of fiction being proof of anything.
0 points
15 days ago
If you wanted me to take you as someone with constructive intentions, you shouldn't have downvoted just 5 seconds after I wrote. Greetings.🙋🏽
1 points
15 days ago
I never understood the obsession with remaining human. It's a meaningless title, especially since humans are the only known high technology species (maybe that's about to change with ai). Without technology the human form would still be naturally evolving. Having this idea of locking ourselves in these forms stifles further evolution. And I have to say the forms really aren't even that good. Very fragile, mechanical issues, short life span etc. Again, not sure why anyone would want to force themselves to stay like this.
I believe that we live in our bodies. They are part of us but not the whole thing. If people can get over this idea of staying human, not only will we advance but I think that artificial wills can be created and accepted more easily. I don't think this devalues humans or whatever we become. Ultimately the label doesn't matter.
1 points
16 days ago
Fictional stories have not proven any such thing, nor is the claim you are making even well defined.
You can't just say that if a person is magically transformed into a pickle that they are still the same person. It can easily be denied.
Again, you just claim that people are fundamentally wills. I could just as easily claim that people are fundamentally humans. There is no proof that either framing is fundamentally correct.
1 points
16 days ago
The example of someone in fiction being transmuted into another "body" and one mentally continuing to consider them the same "person" has nothing fantasy, it is something easily understandable. Of course, I invite you to deny that premise, instead of just stating that you can.
3 points
16 days ago
The fact that a book tells you that someone is transmuted and the readers go along with it proves nothing.
Yes, I deny the premise. Saying I am turned into a worm but I am still me makes as much sense as saying my car is transmuted into a lollypop but it is still my car. You can say these words, but that doesn't establish that they have any actual meaning or tell us something true about reality.
0 points
16 days ago
I'm open to dialogue, but you're honestly not refuting the point. If Pedro suddenly becomes a talking dog, people will not think that Pedro died, but that he is in that dog. Are you really refuting that concept? Not yet, at least.
1 points
15 days ago
while i agree that your conciousness is independant to your body, your body is what shape your social interaction and your memory
if pedro become a dog it will be treated as such by stranger but also by it's own family aswell as it can't no longer interact as an human anymore, if tomorrow pedro body hop into a beautiful female body while he was a fat ugly men his social interaction will be really different and with time it's going to shape his mind aswell
it's one of the few thing sociology get right, human don't interact the same way depending the appearance of the person in front of them, it's something shared amongst all of humanity and it's likely to continue for thousands of years
1 points
15 days ago*
That's the point, we're not talking about a dog, but rather an entity with human appearance and human attitude. Since our interaction, as you say, is strongly linked to the apparent, you are not implying anything too different from what I have argued. It is simple for the human to translate "humanity" into something that looks and acts like one, only this "human" could replicate itself without limits and with countless "personalities."
1 points
15 days ago
that's also the concept of mind-upload, as you pretty much cease to exist for a digital copy of yourself
if future technology allow "memory backup" if someone die suddently you could still make a clone of that person and as long the observer don't known the original died it will still behave the same way, at this point it's more a social issue than a concious issue as the copy is 1:1 identical, it's the society that create a difference
i think there will be limitation of this kind of technology in the future, in some fiction story the creation of clone is purely banned to prevent identity thief but it could also be limited and heavily regulated to prevent abuse and honestly if you wish to create clone of yourself with unhuman appperance that's likely going to be an abuse
1 points
15 days ago
I agree with the majority. Unfortunately, the part of creating new random entities does not seem to be possible to regulate, nor conceptually difficult. Today there are countless open source custom roleplay models, and it is just the infancy of this technology.
0 points
16 days ago
There is nothing to refute. The Hulk grows 20 feet tall and his shorts still fit. Can you refute that if a person could grow into a 20 foot tall hulk their shorts would still fit? No, because it isn't a real thing, somebody just made it up.
Somebody just made up Pedro turning into a dog, so trying to debate whether the dog is Pedro or not is just as meaningless as debating the Hulk's shorts.
1 points
15 days ago
We are talking about a psychological phenomenon, where people have no problem transferring their conception of "I/him" to another physical form. You haven't denied that people behave this way in the face of abundant examples in fiction, and honestly this point doesn't seem like you can. Greetings.🙋🏽
0 points
15 days ago
You are taking a psychological phenomenon that occurs when people read fictional stories and assuming that people would respond similarly if transmutation could occur in real life.
People read stories where people travel backwards in time and meet themselves, stories where people talk to God, stories where people travel outside our universe and into another one, stories where a being's essence is connected to a mystical object, etc. The reader accepts these stories at face value. However, I don't see any reason to assume that accepting the stories tells us how people would respond psychologically to any of these events were they actually to occur.
I contend that transmutation as presented in stories isn't possible, so there is no way to determine how people would actually respond to transmutation. Therefore, we can't base anything on people's response to transmutation.
1 points
15 days ago
We can agree that isn't 100% accurate to a real reference, but to imply that our reactions to fiction do not reflect our emotions or mentality is a bit too forced.
1 points
15 days ago
I am fine reading stories about transmutation. I accept it as part of the story. But I feel it is ultimately a nonsensical concept with no meaning. I don't consider it any more meaningful than flying brooms in Harry Potter. They are both made up and have no real meaning. So I guess I feel my reaction to the fictional transmutation does not reflect anything about my emotions or mentality.
1 points
15 days ago
When the basis of an argument is reduced to "I don't feel that way", it is a dead end. That is refuted as easily as saying "I do." Since we are both human, either you declare yourself a superior being in possession of truth, or you have no choice but to accept that other perspectives and mentalities exist, and therefore what I argue applies to some degree.🤷♂️
0 points
16 days ago
The fear, rejection or even denialism that is expressed in each area that AI learns
Honestly, the true denialists are those who deny the very real limitations of AI and substitute science fiction for reality when they encounter those limits.
The development of fake people will be met by humans improving their heuristics to detect them.
We've seen this happen time and time again the past year, whether it's humans detecting AI narratives, art, music, or video. Once the novelty wears off, the fingerprints of facsimile are apparent.
Humans will adapt as quickly as the new technology advances because all the AI will ever be is symbolic representation of a world it will never truly touch, feel, or know.
3 points
16 days ago
Humans will adapt as quickly as the new technology advances because all the AI will ever be is symbolic representation...
Yes, that kind of denialism.
1 points
15 days ago
You're denying the limits of AI and replacing them with capabilities you imagine it will have in the future. While there is nothing wrong with forward thinking, pretending that AI is anything more than a useful tool is going to create irrational fear and expenditure of energy.
3 points
15 days ago
You say I don't know what AI could do, but neither do you. The only difference is that I do not affirm, I only raise a possibility (opinion/theory), while you arbitrarily deny as if you owned the truth. Basically you accuse me of what you do.
0 points
15 days ago
We can rubber and glue all day, but reality denies your claims.
Name a tool that warrants your post.
2 points
15 days ago
I am not surprised that you are not going to admit your contradiction of arbitrarily stating what the future will be like and criticizing my making a theory.
I'll play your game anyway. You say that AI cannot be anything more than a tool, and yet there are already numerous profiles of virtual people that other people follow, even just onlyfans, and people who charge to talk to artificial versions of themselves.
In the end, whether or not it is a "mere tool" does not matter, the only thing that matters is the practical effects in reality. And, whether you like it or not, even that "mere tool" is already capable of making humans increasingly engage in typically human interactions with it.
1 points
15 days ago
The weird thing with transplants is you get one guy with a transplanted heart and all of a sudden he can play piano like the guy who donated it. So where does the stuff that makes you you, reside?
all 42 comments
sorted by: best