Current state of the art computer technology, especially recent developments in quantum computing, are indications of a future. A problem that took an ordinary computer hundreds of years, was solved in a few hours! And it took less than a century for this computer to emerge. Compared with the brain, that's in the blink of an eye. We shouldn't be surprised if computer scientists will soon provide us with structures to replace the brain. Our consciousness will be expanded and useless brain tissue can be replaced or our coupled to the informative potential of the net. A direct brain-net link is imaginable. Brain information can eventually be uploaded into the net, where we might temporarily exist to search for new knowledge gathered by fellow humans.

Well if you are just here to troll then you would roleplay, wouldn't you. — universeness

I'm a atheist. God is a fantasy. I'm just curious why you think I'm a theist? What in what I wrote makes you think that?

I think your future views are great! :smile:

The antichrist is to much for me though. I'm an atheist like you once was.

Tough question! I've heard this said more often than I could care to count but don't animals attack only when provoked? In other words, aggression maybe a good thing, part of our wilderness survival toolkit.

What I would suggest however is to channel that aggression into more benign activities (part of the ability model of EQ) like sports, board games like chess, you get the idea! — Agent Smith

Animals will attack to kill for food/resources or to protect their territory or their young or to gain status within their ranks or if they feel threatened or cornered.
All behaviours that humans will recognise and we can see these behaviours still practiced by humans all over the planet but humans also use the word 'animal,' as an insult, especially towards those who we think act from these base, Darwinian instincts without any attempt to counter them with our ability to be more discerning and 'civilised.'
If humans can take their basic needs for granted and are mentally stable and can be offered purpose in their lives then they become much more affable in my opinion.
Future transhumanism may help in allowing humans to be more affable.
I don't think future transhumanism means that humans have to become something like 'the Stepford wives' or the human-like replicants that have been dramatised/projected in some of the more depressing or threatening sci-fi stories. Theism would like us all to be terrified of transhumanism so that many are forced back to there religions.

@Vincent talks about worldpeace! What's wrong with that? He has a future vision where man has left his evolutionary superfluous baggage and has replaced it by the miracles of technique. It's an optimistic vision. Except maybe the WW3.

I'm a atheist. I'm just curious why you think I'm a theist? What in what I wrote makes you think that? — Hillary

Theistic trolls use the roleplay tactic often.

thanks. I'm not sure either. I am very insecure about everything. But I know one thing. Nobody knows the truth. And those who think they do know are not open to progress.

Vincent talks about worldpeace! What's wrong with that? He has a future vision where man has left his evolutionary superfluous baggage and has replaced it by the miracles of technique. It's an optimistic vision. Except maybe the WW3. — Hillary

I see no point in exchanging viewpoints with you. I don't trust your intentions. I think you are a troll.

transhumanism — universeness

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for transhumanism but I feel you're expanding its scope in a way unintended by its proponents - into modifying our nature which is being done as we speak via incarceration and executions which amount to expulsion from the gene pool. In short, we're doing to ourselves what we've been doing to dogs over the past 30k years or so. While the intentions maybe honorable, the road to hell is paved with good intentions says an old adage. It may backfire is what I mean.

All that is speculation of course. The future is wrapped in an impenetrable fog.

see no point in exchanging viewpoints with you. I don't trust your intentions. I think you are a troll. — universeness

And who says you are not the troll? I just write how the world and humans might look one day. With the aid of technology. I can't see how this would be an attempt to undermine transhumanism. I think it would be great to be transhuman and think I might encounter them in my lifetime. In a limited sense they are already here. We have hear implants and nano-bots are awaiting. If we can extend life with them, we can get wiser and develop even smarter machines. Which could develop smarter ware again. The omega point is a realistic future.

But I know one thing. Nobody knows the truth. — Vincent

:clap:

I see no point in exchanging viewpoints with you. I don't trust your intentions. — universeness

And what would these intentions be? Promoting theism? You have a strange way of thinking. Says probably more about you then about me.

But I know one thing. Nobody knows the truth.
— Vincent

:clap:
a minute ag — Agent Smith

Sounds like an equal starting point for all of us then.

Sounds like an equal starting point for all of us then. — universeness

Si, we're back to square one! Snakes & Ladders. I always get eaten by the longest snake!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for transhumanism but I feel you're expanding its scope in a way unintended by its proponents - into modifying our nature which is being done as we speak via incarceration and executions which amount to expulsion from the gene pool. In short, we're doing to ourselves what we've been doing to dogs over the past 30k years or so. While the intentions maybe honorable, the road to hell is paved with good intentions says an old adage. It may backfire is what I mean — Agent Smith

I think some scientists do develop new tech without thinking too much about its ramifications but not that many (I hope). Why would a human who has learned to control their Darwinian inherited basic instincts, be a 'modification,' even if that improved control is assisted or encouraged by transhuman tech?
It could backfire, absolutely but all progress involves risk, yes?
I think your clarion call of caution is very important and I amplify it but not towards fear and rejection of new tech but towards the need for detailed analysis and debate of the issues involved.
We must be very careful where and on what we tread. We cannot just 'expel from the gene pool,' based on a misguided view of 'human perfection,' or design humans like we have designed dogs.
I know there are many complications and difficulties involved but do you think the potential rewards are worth the risks?

Si, we're back to square one! Snakes & Ladders. I always get eaten by the longest snake — Agent Smith

I don't know your back story Agent Smith but based on some of your postings, you are quite harsh on yourself. You don't need to put yourself down, there are plenty of nasties out there who get great pleasure out of doing that for you. You should take great pleasure every time you defeat them by not putting yourself down. Humility yes, genuine self-deprecation no f****** way!!!!!!!

I have always been an atheist and just discovered the existence of god. I thought this forum was a place for free-thinking people to come together and exchange each other's thoughts, but apparently I'm wrong. Apparently you already know it all.
I myself never had the chance to go to school and learn anything from anyone. I had to figure everything out myself. So I'm here to learn something. I grew up with freedom of opinion. If that's not accepted here, then I won't comment anymore. I will leave you alone. I'll live my life the way I want to — Vincent

Well , if what you type here is true then that's fine. I am merely a member of TPF and I am more science-based than philosophy based so I am an interloper myself on this site. I would say this is a site for 'free-thinking,' but it also gets its fair share of cranks. I was simply probing to find out.
Please continue to post your views, you will perhaps gain a lot from the responses you receive.
Please do continue to live your life the way you want to as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same.

I don't know your back story Agent Smith but based on some of your postings, you are quite harsh on yourself. You don't need to put yourself down, there are plenty of nasties out there who get great pleasure out of doing that for you. You should take great pleasure every time you defeat them by not putting yourself down. Humility yes, genuine self-deprecation no f****** way!!!!!!! — universeness

Let's just say that I know there's always a bigger fish out there somewhere. Perhaps I compare myself to Socrates or Einstein or Gödel, basically someone with an IQ that's orders of magnitude greater than mine. My self-effacing manner is but an acknowledgement of genius (read Buddhas, sensu lato) past, present and future. :smile:

control — universeness

Yep, that's something I wanted to touch upon, it slipped my mind. Isn't it better to control one's passion "apps" than to delete them altogether? Isn't a man who wanted to kill but didn't better than the man (the Buddha?) who never has murderous intentions? I dunno, the jury's still out!

My self-effacing manner is but an acknowledgement of genius (read Buddhas, sensu lato) past, present and future. — Agent Smith

:smile: Ok.

Yep, that's something I wanted to touch upon, it slipped my mind. Isn't it better to control one's passion "apps" than to delete them altogether? Isn't a man who wanted to kill but didn't better than the man (the Buddha?) who never has murderous intentions? I dunno, the jury's still out! — Agent Smith

Imo, yes to the first question and I am conflicted as to my answer to the second one. I would rather reword the question. I would not miss an 'app' such as one that invoked 'murderous intent' but I would pehaps still need one that could invoke 'the intent to kill.' I think I might need an intent to kill someone that threatens my life or the life of other innocents. It would be better if I choose not to because I could rely on the 'law' and 'justice,' but I think I would still need 'the ability to kill.' I may not need it however if every other human lost the ability to murder.

To address the question asked, the answer is a firm-sounding yes. It's expected that minds gradually appear in robots, which already today can perform ingenious motion. There are robots answering autonomously. Complete autonomy as not been achieved yet but the state of the art is growing exponentially and the limit of miniaturization is still far away. We could, in principle, construct a neuron-sized micro computer and use the structure of the vacuum as memory. Imagine a three-dimensional packing of these and it becomes clear that in comparison with the brain a progression is made. Already now, the retina can be replaced by an artificial structure and the artificial heart is a fact. The paralyzed can influence computers by thought. We can upload the results of knowledge gathering and make it available for everyone, leading to new knowledge and new technology, in a mutually reinforcing dance. Etcetera, etcetera. We only have taken the first steps, still falling a lot, but the signs don't lie. And with quantum computing just born, we should not be surprised if we will have created a first artificially mind this century.

Please continue to post your views, you will perhaps gain a lot from the responses you receive.
Please do continue to live your life the way you want to as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same. — universeness

I will do that. Thank you

So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading? — Haglund

I'm with you in the general scepticism about the feasibility just on sheer complexity. And it doesn't end with the "electronics" of 10 billion neurons as the functions are also moderated by chemicals and the constant input of the senses.
But being not practical doesn't mean not possible. The practicability question may be solved by some shortcuts where clusters of neurons are replaced by much simpler but functionally equivalent emulations. If that ever happens it comes down to the age old question of monism versus dualism and the question if we can ever test it. I predict that the dualists will not accept a functioning uploaded mind as proof. They'll cite the Chinese Room and ask if that mind has "real consciousness™".

Excelente!

Back when I was in college, we learned of what could be described as an emergency response plan for people an animals. It was taught to us as fight or flight response and it seems that was only two-thirds of the story in a manner of speaking - there's also freeze, the full complement of our emergency response plan being enumerated as fight or flight or freeze response. The freeze component is taken to an extrema in possums known for "rolling over and playing dead" which kinda vindicates my earlier claim that animals only attack when provoked (when they perceive a threat).

Could a deer be an existential threat to a tiger? Worth pondering upon!

Random musings.

@universeness seems to be playing a very refined cos play here. Peddling atheism and transhumanism while actually advocating for God. It's a well-known theistic tactic to accuse others of doing that, thereby strengthening the atheist cover.

Is your blog a preaching for God?

There is a difference between worshiping god and accepting that god exists. I have just accepted that god exists in the form of omniscient aliens. But I will never worship it. Once one realizes how big the universe is, then other life must be possible. We wonder why we can't find them. That's wrong. We have to ask ourselves why they don't contact us. The answer is very simple. If we can't even manage to get aggression out of the world, why should they help us with anything. God (or whatever god may be) does not help us by just believing in it. History full of war proves that. We will have to solve it ourselves without God. All progress has been made by someone who does not follow the rules of god. But that doesn't change the fact that God does exist. I don't know what that looks like, but I am 100% sure that god exists. And if you look at what the world looks like today and in the past, how can one love or even worship god. I hate god.
In my blog it is explained that god exists, but that we do not need it to have it right. A world without worship is much better and that is all explained in a very simple way on my blog. If we abolish god worship then eternal life is very easy to obtain. In fact, I've been thinking about a decade or two. You should read it from start to finish. Perhaps then you would no longer deny the existence of god.

From this reasonable posting:

To address the question asked, the answer is a firm-sounding yes. It's expected that minds gradually appear in robots, which already today can perform ingenious motion. There are robots answering autonomously. Complete autonomy as not been achieved yet but the state of the art is growing exponentially and the limit of miniaturization is still far away. We could, in principle, construct a neuron-sized micro computer and use the structure of the vacuum as memory. Imagine a three-dimensional packing of these and it becomes clear that in comparison with the brain a progression is made. Already now, the retina can be replaced by an artificial structure and the artificial heart is a fact. The paralyzed can influence computers by thought. We can upload the results of knowledge gathering and make it available for everyone, leading to new knowledge and new technology, in a mutually reinforcing dance. Etcetera, etcetera. We only have taken the first steps, still falling a lot, but the signs don't lie. And with quantum computing just born, we should not be surprised if we will have created a first artificially mind this century — Hillary

To this:

Peddling atheism and transhumanism while actually advocating for God. It's a well-known theistic tactic to accuse others of doing that, thereby strengthening the atheist cover. — Hillary

:roll:

Now who's a 'little bit paranoid?'

have you looked at any of the small forays into biological computing?
Do you think this future tech could deal with the complexity issue you raised?
Biological computing is, for example, currently trying to identify a process within proteins, which is reliable/stable/controllable enough to emulate at least the two binary states (0,1) within electronic computer systems.

The freeze component is taken to an extrema in possums known for "rolling over and playing dead" which kinda vindicates my earlier claim that animals only attack when provoked (when they perceive a threat). — Agent Smith

I think the 'playing possum' scenario became highlighted in importance to humans because it has been employed so many times by so many soldiers during battles in history. It's a good human survival tactic if you can hold your breath long enough and emulate a human dead body when being directly prodded/kicked by the enemy.
I don't know if possums learned to do this by observing early Australian humans or the ancient humans learned it from them, perhaps we both learned such behaviours due to a strong survival instinct.

Playing possum is not so useful if you are a deer being attacked by a tiger. Play possum there and the tiger will start to eat you whilst you are still alive. :scream:
I think deer are only ever going to threaten the existence of tigers if there are no more deer.

Just my counter, rather random musings.

I have just accepted that god exists in the form of omniscient aliens. — Vincent

Would this not be gods born of naturalism rather than the supernatural?
If we become omniscient in the vastly distant future because we have answered all questions would we then be god? This is the eventual projection of some panpsychist viewpoints. We have had a few recent threads on that topic.

Now who's a 'little bit paranoid?' — universeness

I just repeated your claim that it is me using theist tactics. Who says it's not you using theist tactics? Why you accused me of it? Where did I give you the impression I believe in God?