RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 28 of 30«122627282930»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 06.10.2016, 23:00 | Message # 406
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
The underlying system is still there. The brain is still running when you are unconscious.


People who come back from brain death are only copies? A different ego in the same body?

I mean, I'm sure people can argue for it, and we can't disprove it. But I don't think it follows, at least from how I think about consciousness as an emergent property. But this is probably where you and I think differently, and that's fine. smile My own take on it is this:

I think what makes your subjective sense of self is your consciousness: a wonderful and complex metaprocess which emerges -- somehow -- from the meat of the brain, and more specifically the pattern of information it contains. We know the continuity of self is maintained even while physical components of the system are changed. Classic Ship of Theseus stuff. We know the system can be put to sleep or even coma, and consciousness ceases. Somehow upon reawakening the consciousness storms back into being. We can even observe it through the pattern of neurons firing. Maintain the pattern -- propagate it forward in time -- and then let those processes unfold, and boom, out springs the consciousness with its memory and the illusion of continuity of self.

So I do think in the false-MRI example my self does continue in both the physical and robotic bodies. Both of them say they are I. This is not to be confused with the idea that the pre-scan I is then experiencing the world from two locations. No, of course each body is a self contained system and is only aware of his self. For a brief moment during the scan, they are the same self, but then they diverge, as they exist in their own causally disconnected system where the pattern of their information (their experiences, thoughts, and memories) are now changing. They become two separate individuals, both equally qualified to say they are the continuation of me. Which one did I become? They both say I seamlessly became them. To each of them they are I and the other is someone else. They are utterly convinced of it, in precisely the same way that you right now are convinced that you are the continuation of the you that lived yesterday.

So what is "death", then? I think death is not the destruction of the body. Death is the failure of that information from being able to propagate forward in time. Destroy the pattern -- make it irretrievable through entropy and unable to be "run" within a brain or a robotic equivalent -- and you are dead.

Copy-paste-delete is a good way to maintain your self, but not a good way to avoid death. One of your causal descendents experiences death. Copy and simultaneous paste-delete is teleportation, and is indistinguishable from day-to-day life.





 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Friday, 07.10.2016, 06:40 | Message # 407
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
People who come back from brain death are only copies? A different ego in the same body?


Most likely if you died today, were froze, and brought back it would be you waking up on the other side. I meant it more as the basic brain is still there, if it died and was repaired it should still be you but I guess that is impossible to know.

Quote Watsisname ()
in precisely the same way that you right now are convinced that you are the continuation of the you that lived yesterday.


That is what is at the heart of what I was pointing out. It seems you and I are thinking along the same lines but crisscrossing our ways of seeing it.

Quote Watsisname ()
Copy-paste-delete is a good way to maintain your self, but not a good way to avoid death. One of your causal descendents experiences death. Copy and simultaneous paste-delete is teleportation, and is indistinguishable from day-to-day life.


Exactly and that is why transporters are iffy. Star Trek transporters are not copies even though people like to call them that. A Trek transporter is the original.

Take the Riker example where he became two individuals. In Star Trek the transporter first scans the individual, stores the information across a few systems, the person is not deconstructed at this point. You have what they call the pattern buffer where everything is going to be stored, then the persons information is broken down and moved through a "matter stream", and on the other side the pattern is brought back to the matter stream and the person is reconstructed.

What this means is you stay you, since all quantum states are preserved, especially with the nifty piece of technology called the Heisenberg compensator.

We even see Barclay's experience in the transporter in an episode


Now back to the Riker problem. In the episode Second chances the crew find a planet that Riker was on earlier, however on the planet they find a second Riker, an exact duplicate. This Riker claims to be the real Riker, what is determined later is that they both are Riker from the same source, something about the signal being broken or bounced back.

My take on this is similar to your MRI example. The signal that was transferring Riker was simply split and the computer used the stored information to correct for errors on both ends, so both Rikers are the original.









Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 17.10.2016, 03:33 | Message # 408
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Uber Vows to Put Self-Driving Otto Trucks on the Road by 2017
Quote
Uber has evolved from a simple ride-hailing app into a business that wants to revolutionize the way we get around. The San Francisco-based company is already shaking up the market with autonomous vehicles and its food delivery service UberEats.

Uber wants to shake up another industry: trucking. Uber has purchased self-driving truck startup Otto to enter the long-haul freight business and put their trucks on the road by 2017.

Uber just bought Otto this summer for $680 million. And while their dreams of autonomous trucking are decades away, Uber and Otto wants to start using the mapping, tracking, and hailing experience Uber has for autonomous big rigs.





http://futurism.com/uber-otto-trucks-2017/





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
werdnaforeverDate: Monday, 17.10.2016, 05:09 | Message # 409
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
Uber Vows to Put Self-Driving Otto Trucks on the Road by 2017

Future 2018 news headline: "High level Uber employees in critical condition after violent clash with enraged redneck truck-driver protesters"
 
AerospacefagDate: Monday, 17.10.2016, 21:59 | Message # 410
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
My take on this is similar to your MRI example. The signal that was transferring Riker was simply split and the computer used the stored information to correct for errors on both ends, so both Rikers are the original.

The most common concept most of the futurists are missing is that by the time we will be able to scan life-sized objects with atomic precision, we won't need to do that. Unless at some other point of time we forget so much we won't be able to know how our machines wirk, in which case I can't really imagine what is worse - to be unable, or do not want to do something.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
And while their dreams of autonomous trucking are decades away, Uber and Otto wants to start using the mapping, tracking, and hailing experience Uber has for autonomous big rigs.

People barely started using autonomous monorails these days and what do they want to achieve by "self-driving" cars other than total surveillance?


Edited by Aerospacefag - Monday, 17.10.2016, 21:59
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 17.10.2016, 23:28 | Message # 411
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
what do they want to achieve by "self-driving" cars other than total surveillance?


Safer roads, shipping cost reductions, and cheaper goods and services.

Automation is a good thing





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
spacerDate: Monday, 17.10.2016, 23:30 | Message # 412
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Israel
Messages: 1258
Status: Offline
you will also have more human power for other jobs and subjects when you wont need to deliever billions tons of goods every year by humans
but i wonder if it will work....robots that deliever our goods....not always worked in hollywood movies tongue





"we began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan

-space engine photographer


Edited by spacer - Monday, 17.10.2016, 23:31
 
WatsisnameDate: Tuesday, 18.10.2016, 01:32 | Message # 413
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
A while back I took a test drive of a car which -- while not fully self driving -- had cameras which registered obstacles, road lanes, and other vehicles, and had an automatic cruise control for the highway so that it would maintain safe distance from other cars. The only thing you had to do is steer. If traffic came to a halt it would automatically brake and come to a stop with perfect buttery smoothness. It was actually quite odd in the sense that I had to repeatedly tell myself not to brake, to trust the car to do it for me. It's a big change from the muscle memory of driving in full control.

It was very nice; I'd love to drive like that for long road trips. But I think I still like the steering and the ability to be in full control in certain situations. Even if it is intrinsically less safe.





 
midtskogenDate: Tuesday, 18.10.2016, 11:33 | Message # 414
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
I think I still like the steering and the ability to be in full control in certain situations.

Not just in certain situations. The reflexes need to get practised, so when you need to take manual control, because the situation is too complex for automation, you will still be able to be in control.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
SalvoDate: Tuesday, 18.10.2016, 14:01 | Message # 415
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Watsisname, I've recently watched a video of a Tesla with self-driving!
It has two modes, with automated acceleration/braking (like the one you've personally tried) and with also automated steering (you just have to tell the car whenever you want to change lane).

I think I would never trust technology enough to give the steering control to the car, so I would just use the automated braking. Still it's awesome!

Just think about how many less car accidents there would be. You're drunk? Just let the cat take you back home!





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
AerospacefagDate: Tuesday, 18.10.2016, 16:08 | Message # 416
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
Safer roads, shipping cost reductions, and cheaper goods and services.

Allow me express some bitter truth of life, in a futile attempt to dispel the magic of numbers.

1. Safety is result a collective responsibility, especially road safety. You can't be safe if you are the only one who cares about safety on the road. You are participating in the informal agreement, you are reading the signs in the behaviour of people and you are moving accordingly - the machines are unable to do that.
2. Shipping cost will of course not reduce until most of the cars become self-driving, as well as price of goods end services, because people are going to use their increased income for their personal gain.
3. Liquidation of workplaces will cause a lot of unemployment and social tension.
4. All of the above can be safely ignored if you can make a lot of money out of it. But if you can't, woe unto you.
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Tuesday, 18.10.2016, 17:36 | Message # 417
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
You can't be safe if you are the only one who cares about safety on the road. You are participating in the informal agreement, you are reading the signs in the behaviour of people and you are moving accordingly - the machines are unable to do that.


The vast majority of people, especially businesses and governments, care about safer roads.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
the machines are unable to do that.


Self driving cars have already been proven to be capable of driving with people on the road and have been proven to be far safer. The technology will only continue to improve and it is only a matter of time before the human element is removed.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
Shipping cost will of course not reduce until most of the cars become self-driving,


Cost will reduce almost immediately for companies that switch, it may take time for prices to reduce on the consumer end.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
because people are going to use their increased income for their personal gain.


This is probably true for the short term. As automation spreads more companies will use it and they will use cost savings to reduce price which will overall make things cheaper everywhere.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
Liquidation of workplaces will cause a lot of unemployment and social tension.


This is not new
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

There are solutions for technological unemployment such as basic income systems.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Thursday, 20.10.2016, 19:11 | Message # 418
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Sunday, 23.10.2016, 02:01 | Message # 419
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 26.10.2016, 07:40 | Message # 420
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
Page 28 of 30«122627282930»
Search: