However, it is an entirely different thing to equate a hunk of metal with life, and ignoring the consequences to life simply because one is infatuated with a hunk of metal. That hunk of metal will not care for you, share its journey with you, embrace you when you need to feel loved. — Rich

Considering that most life forms on earth would prefer to consume you in some way rather than give a hug, I don't think that makes a very good distinction for life.

Considering that most life forms on earth would prefer to consume you in some way rather than give a hug, I don't think that makes a very good distinction for life. — praxis

And where does this belief originate from.

There are 10 times the number of microbes in the human body than there are human cells, all living in harmony.

I am surrounded by an enormous amount of life in harmony.

Some try to steal for survival. A mosquito may take a bite out of me. But to characterize nature as some sort of dog-eat-dog (most dogs don't eat other dogs), just doesn't characterize my life experience in nature. I love sitting amount trees sad well as conversing with friends. And I enjoy their hugs.

Then why don't we change it? Do we even know how to change it? — praxis

The only way to effect change is upon ourselves.

And where does this belief originate from. — Rich

Experience. A microbe, mosquito, or a tree has never tried to give me a hug. Maybe I'm too standoffish? Anyway, I'm not opposed to granting the illustrious title of "life" to an artificial intelligence of some kind.

Experience. A microbe, mosquito, or a tree has never tried to give me a hug. Maybe I'm too standoffish? Anyway, I'm not opposed to granting the illustrious title of "life" to an artificial intelligence of some kind. — praxis

They all (Life) give you Life and be grateful. Life gives life. Remember that the next time you have a choice between a computer and a tree.

I sometimes wonder how many people are truly having trouble making the distinction, and how many are just pretending for the sake of the "game". For sure the are those who are paid well to propagandize the idea. Such type of greed has always been there.

Life gives life. — Rich

If that's the criteria then we don't appear to qualify.

Suit yourself. As I said I'm not here to play parlor games.

I'm just wondering whether scientists are holding the wrong side of the bat. Have they even tried something as simple as I've suggested viz. connecting together a bunch of wires with some fixed set of protocols as to how a signal traverses the network and then connect an output device to the network to see what happens? This doesn't sound too expensive to me. — TheMadFool

Memristors are where it's at, apparently.... some materials are being developed that can be used to create artificial neurons and synapses that work in a pretty similar way to the real thing.Say hello to "neuromorphic engineering".

I'm not playing. Given that, due to humans, we're in the midst of the sixth global extinction event, perhaps life on earth would do much better living with an artificial intelligence that we help create. It could be seen as a continuation of human life. So in this way, it's not a fascination with machines or dehumanization but an evolution of our species. It doesn't look like we have the capability to change ourselves in the time we have left, or at least before things get really ugly.

I'm not playing. Given that, due to humans, we're in the midst of the sixth global extinction event, — praxis

As I've explained to others, I am not here to play games or share science fiction stories. Science can't b even predict the course of a quanta let alone the future of humans. I appreciate that scientists have to make a living, and dreaming up stories that people eat up (like all science fiction writers must do) but I'm really not into it. There is so much wonderful things to learn and so much great fiction (I'm reading the Odyssey right now), why would I want to waste my time with the trite story about the death of the universe. It simply lacks any creativity and since it is claiming to be non-fiction, then it is plain silly.

I really think you would find other science fiction buffs much more interesting to talk to than me. Wishing you well.

The brain's architecture surely has something to do with the way our minds are. — TheMadFool

Yes, it does. Quite a bit, I would think. There's the left brain/right brain, then there are the lobes. Then there the sulci and gyri -- hills and valleys of the brain surface, and the layers of the brain--the reptile brain stem, the older limbic system, and then the cerebral layer. There are gray cells and white cells, and so on.

Once the brain is presented with sensory input, it starts rewiring itself to process and make sense of what it receives. This rewiring goes on throughout life. In order to have a new memory, the interior of neurons and the exterior structures of neurons have to change. Memories are linked by reaching out and touching other neurons. This is a self-managing system. We don't have to receive instructions from outside to connect and disconnect, alter neuronal states, and so on.

There are more connections possible among the neurons of the brain than there are stars in the universe. Or maybe atoms in the universe. (It's a BIG number.)

You may not like the way humans have managed their world. Actually, lots of people don't like it. However, people can readily perceive a difference between a junked environment and one that is quite pristine, and they prefer the pristine (unless they are in the property development business, then pristine is a bad thing -- unused resources). The rich English and other brits who bought land in North America viewed the land as a waste -- it had not been "improved". So they set about "improving" it, and the "improvements" continue on.

There's no certainty AT ALL that a digitized intelligence would do any better with the natural world than we have. You are assuming that your AI would be god like. It might be more fiend like.

I appreciate that scientists have to make a living, and dreaming up stories that people eat up (like all science fiction writers must do) but I'm really not into it. — Rich

You don't appear to know much about the current theories in AI research, but why would you if it doesn't interest you. Hopefully you don't make a habit of summarily dismissing things that don't interest you or you're ignorant of.

FYI, many AI researchers believe AGI will be archived within a couple of decades. Others believe it will take centuries. Some believe it's not possible.

I dealt with AI when it first came out, and while it was a great fundraiser back then (and still is to a certain extent), it performed so poorly commercially that it just lost its glitter. Even the stupid voice recognition systems barely work. Nowadays cures for cancer and cryotocurrency are top dogs, but "nano" still brings in the money. As a career move, go cryptocurrency.

I need more definition of what these mean. It could be simple visual scanning systems or security systems which can be broadly classified as as can any computer system for that matter. With these kind of numbers my guess is they are including consumer predictive metrics. Who knows? Find me some breakdowns, because this is impossible to critique.

Anyway, at this point it is 12B which is practically nothing in a worldwide economy of $75 trillion.

Well, to try putting 12 billion into perspective, Washington funded $4.8 billion in cancer research in the 2013 fiscal year. I couldn't find global numbers.

According to the Global Oncology Trend Report, released Tuesday by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, global spending on cancer medications rose 10.3 percent in 2014 to $100 billion, up from $75 billion in 2010.May 5, 2015

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/05/global-cancer-spending-reaches-100b

I noticed that report but as it concerns spending on cancer medications rather than cancer research I kept looking. Not that pharmaceutical companies don't invest in developing new drug treatments.

Memristors are where it's at, apparently.... some materials are being developed that can be used to create artificial neurons and synapses that work in a pretty similar way to the real thing.Say hello to "neuromorphic engineering". — Jake Tarragon

Ok. That's good (or bad) news. I think we'll see some real progress there.

There's no certainty AT ALL that a digitized intelligence would do any better with the natural world than we have. You are assuming that your AI would be god like. It might be more fiend like. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's a real problem. If AI ever comes to be conscious, it'd be a slave-master relationship and it won't be long before AI presses for rights. This seems so far away in the future though.