Cyborg - Artificial Evolution...For or Against?

[spiderman]

its not weed talk tho.

tryna make this a proper discussion man, can we just leave out the oh-this-shits-crazy-he-must-be-high-with-mental-ideas stereotypes and ignore the fact that i blaze.

[spiderman]

[Dejan Savicevic]

I don't really follow islam but they have got it bang on where they say you shouldn't tamper with the body that god gave you. As somebody insinuated Science can be a great for humanity if used for medicl purposes but we all know there too much corruption in the world and Artificial evolution would lead to oppression and evil.

Definately voting no.

[spiderman]

i reckon they will go for it once the technologies available. it will be a gradual lead up and its already begun with prosthetic limbs and organs. once one of the previous steps has been enforced why go againt the next step? i cant see them just drawing a line. its only a matter of time imo, and if u aint involved you will just get left behind tbh.

besides we need a better body and brain to cope better with and excel at the life we lead.

[Dejan Savicevic]

i reckon they will go for it once the technologies available. it will be a gradual lead up and its already begun with prosthetic limbs and organs. once one of the previous steps has been enforced why go againt the next step? i cant see them just drawing a line. its only a matter of time imo, and if u aint involved you will just get left behind tbh.

besides we need a better body and brain to cope better with and excel at the life we lead.

says who? far as I understand the human body only needs Oxygen, water and sufficient sleep to function. I don't have a problem with prosthetic limbs or organs as these are the result of a casualty. i do have a problem with people unnecassarily tampering with the human body and more dangerously the human brain. This is real life not x-men.

Your right though spider, we are doomed and those of us who don't go along with it will only have our faith and morals to save us.

[Skenghis Khan]

i voted no, but i think augmentation is inevitable, especially in a military context. irl power armour will be on the field in the near future....

[o-guy]

I think it would be counter productive to say no tbh, as the most intelligent life forms on this planet I think we have an obligation to excel beyond natures' capabilites and make ourselves better and better

so few people embrace this view

i'm all for it

the feasible benefits far out weigh the feasible detriments (imo)

nerve responsive prosthetic limbs

the eradication of genetic disorders and illnesses

and for the record, at the time of their creation im sure there were religious groups calling the telephone and the television tools of the devil

change is naturally scary..for some

[Phil Brooks]

[spiderman]

i reckon they will go for it once the technologies available. it will be a gradual lead up and its already begun with prosthetic limbs and organs. once one of the previous steps has been enforced why go againt the next step? i cant see them just drawing a line. its only a matter of time imo, and if u aint involved you will just get left behind tbh.

besides we need a better body and brain to cope better with and excel at the life we lead.

says who? far as I understand the human body only needs Oxygen, water and sufficient sleep to function.

says the economic and political engine that drives modern society. your point would be valid if we lived in a self sustaining society where we're all farmers and hunters but we dont. as a species were all geared to making the economic wheel turn, most if not all of us are given incentive (monetary or otherwise) to be productive and push our abilities to better society. If we arent given incentive we are forced, out of the need to survive..i.e if you dont work you cant get money to live. so my point is that the structure of our society and culture is what demands the best out of us and its this mentality thats brought up this issue. in trying to achieve our best, our flaws are outlined; sure people do basic things to reduce some factors (live healthy, become more educated, use machines etc) but all those actions are towards the external and we're limited in what we can do because we cant fundamentally change ourselves. the human form is a constant....

but this opens the door to go beyond that limit. it will not be rejected out of morals or religion, science and economics will always win.

[spiderman]

this would make a sick sample for a tune.

[o-guy]

i actually dn't understand what is the moral argument against self improvement via cybernetics or whatever

how is it imoral

excluding religion ofcourse

[SPEAK NO EVIL]

i actually dn't understand what is the moral argument against self improvement via cybernetics or whatever

how is it imoral

excluding religion ofcourse

satanic sh*t imo. firstly whoever develops the sh*t first would confine it to themselves/ use it for military purposes - imagine the f*ckery americans or chinese would pull out with if they had them powers. secondly even if it was created by some internationalist cabal of benevolent scientists not everyone would agree to it and the a.i. ppl would end up oppressing the old skool humans (whether they intend to or not. theres only finite resources on the planet and they would use them for themselves). basically u might think its progressive to embrace future technology but all it would do is open the door to new kinds of oppression /brutalisation i.e. next level darwinism.

[spiderman]

this video talks about something that will happen alongside, maybe even precluding to the "singularity" (the point where technological computation is equivalent to that of a human brain); the emergence of some form of intelligent robots that will do a massive variety of tasks for and with humans.

now theres the big issue of the future of such robots accelerating and evolving intelligence to surpass ours and them deciding we are expendable (aka the terminator scenario); this issue seems highly blown up imo, partly cos of the terminator movies. Its quite simple really, all we have to do is embrace a merger of biology and technology and become cyborgs whilst at the same time restrict autonomous intelligence/computation to be a level lower than that which is incorporated within us (initially anyways). That way the smartest "machines" will be us and we would seem as one with the AI, if they ever viewed humanity as unneccesary. in other words we have to redifine humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJ5c1vv-p0

[Bardissimo]

will ultimately erase what makes us human imo

[Grafter]

there is a natural order, everything in our world works in cycles, even our bodies

artificially tampering with the natural order can only have disastrous effects

it wont serve to better our lives in the end

if we want to improve our brains and bodies, how about first finding ways of naturally reaching our natural potentials

theres so much more that we can do with what we have without the need for computer enhancements imo

[spiderman]

ye but all of that is just too intangible. theres nothing concrete or solid to use and manipulate, like the science behind technology. i agree that we are not using our full potential naturally, but in a normal state we are limited to what we can make the body do. the only things that remotely exists to further the human potential is spiritual and pyschological methods but their all very open to interpretation and dont really gurantee anything. in short i dont think humans will try to further develop spiritulaity and mastery of the human boday because its shrouded in mystery and there is nothing solid pushing any chance of development there. the easier option will be to go for technology because its got much more promise and a certain foundation which is always being built upon.

[Grafter]

its a crying shame that our sprituality is being shut down and locked off in favour of technology

this is the way the world has been goin for a long time, counter productive, what happens when the machines fail?

[spiderman]

there will obviously be some kinds of fail safes. the machines or computers will probably be the build up of many smaller machines. like thousands of smaller systems operating under one organism, just like the human body. if a part of your body fails you can still relatively carry on with life in most cases.

[Grafter]

so we will all jus end up slaves to the machine

become a collective just like the borg

sure its an efficient way to live, but is it fulfilling

i think not

we will literally lose freedom of thought in the process of tryin to enhance our minds

the greatest computer on this planet is the human brain

and in the beginning of all this cyborg business, it will be people who can afford it buying the technology, then it will be small groups of people, corporations controlling the technology that will eventually control us

[Goddaz]

Firstly I'd like to applaud smaddy, bun all this Cyborg ting.

I am all for natural evolution, anything beyond that will in time annihilate the human race. St Augustine said it best 'Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth.' All that you want/desire/need is inside each and every one of you.

I truely believe all these advances in technology/embracing artificial intelligence/trying to play God will unequivocally end in a singularity/asymptote. The rate of change & energy in the world is alarmingly HIGH and rapidly still rising. When we reach (very soon according to calculations) the time when change is infinite, God or whoever or whatever put all this together help us.

It has been predicted that humanity is fast approaching an omega point, or singularity (Broderick, 2001; Kurzweil, 2005; P. Russell, 1995, 2004; Sterling, 2004; Teilhard de Chardin, 1964, 2002), when predicting the future will be nearly impossible due to the rapid convergence of technology, humanity, and spirituality and the resulting pace of change. Therefore, if one were to map the advance of human technology and innovation towards this omega point it would look much like the following figure:

In the figure above, the horizontal axis represents time by millennia and the vertical axis represents technological innovation and change on a relative scale.

/

The Esoteric Agenda

Please watch all 13 parts though parts 12 & 13 is the most relevant to this discussion.

[spiderman]

so we will all jus end up slaves to the machine

become a collective just like the borg

sure its an efficient way to live, but is it fulfilling

i think not

we will literally lose freedom of thought in the process of tryin to enhance our minds

the greatest computer on this planet is the human brain

and in the beginning of all this cyborg business, it will be people who can afford it buying the technology, then it will be small groups of people, corporations controlling the technology that will eventually control us

we wont be slaves to anything, we will BECOME the machines. a fully integrated organism, enhanced by basically "artificial nature". that is in short what this is trying to replicate/improve upon anyways, the product of nature; the system of multi-celled communicating organisms that spawns an evolving intelligent organism.

right now nature is in the lead because like you say the human brain is the most powerful computer, but given time our "artificial nature" will overtake it, theres no denying that. its up to us whether we want to evolve under that nature since we will be the creators of it. it would definately be fullfilling to know we have improved upon nature and are the products of the fusion of biological and technological peaks, the abilities we will have we cant even imagine at this point.

i dont see us losing freedom and i cant see us becoming some kind of rigid super organism like the borg, or the matrix like the movies would elude to. we would be as free as individual bacterium or bee's are in their superoganism structures, to wonder off individually and explore. what is ultimately "infinite communication" of information and full integration may seem like a removal of freedom, but it wont go as far as making us basically zombies of a superior collective intelligence imo, its just not in out nature or social structure and we will never go that far (as long as we remain cyborg and retain part of our bilogical inheritance). if we decide to become fully artificial, then ye you may be right.

...as for the actual onset of any cyborg revolution, yes this is one of the major issues; the selectiveness of the process and under the laws of economics it would basically result is some additional discrimination and social boundaries being developed if part of society was cyborg and another equivalent part wasn't/ it wouldnt bode well and cause quite a lot of friction. which is why this is such a sensitive issue and for once humans need to put their social and economic structures aside when it concerns something so important such as this. this is something i dont think our society is mature enough to do yet and will be its downfall if it isnt by the time this revolution comes along.

*EDIT: sorry i just noticed when you mentioned the word "collective" it was refering to what i previously said about "thousands of smaller systems operating under one organism". i wanst talking about a collective or an external superorganism at all (even tho it mite of not been clear), what i actually meant basically was about the thousands of parts and hardware/softwares that will consist into making one AI or cyborg. just like the heart, the brain, etc....of the human body, there will be an equivalent system made with lots of components in the artifical being.

[spiderman]

Goddaz, im gonna look into those youtube videos in a bit...

but what do u mean when you say..

I truely believe all these advances in technology/embracing artificial intelligence/trying to play God will unequivocally end in a singularity/asymptote.

its not really an opinion or a belief isit lol, its more of a fact. the singularity and that graph u posted just means the point where intellegence will shoot up and grow exponentially. i cant see how thats a bad thing, surely thats good? or shoudl we throw out or computers, ps3's and HD TV's because were moving aaway from the "natural path" and the conditions which nature intended for our species to live? (in that case we should probably go back to the jungle and hunt).

should a person who has lost a limb, or in need of a pacemaker, reject such an item and accept that nature "selected" them to be disadvantaged and weave them out? its in our nature to make choices to survive and better ourselves, you cant repress years of instinct. ironically it is this instinct developed by nature thats driving us to create our own nature essentially.

[Grafter]

spiderman i think me an you are making a sh*t load of presumptions

but im not gna lie, you speak as if you are the mastermind of the cyborg revolution, truth is we dont know how its gna work, we cant possibly no if this artificial intelligence will become superior to ours for the simple fact that we dont know our own potentials yet

in addition, whenever humans make advancements in technology some end up using it for destruction of humanity

look at nuclear energy, its a beautiful thing, but one man or a group of men are like o but we can kill people with this sh*t

i dont think it will ever work to better humanity,

as time goes on we as a human race become more intelligent and innovative which helps as progress, this is true but AI and a cyborg society, like i said it doesnt improve humanity it jus makes us less of what we are

[Goddaz]

Goddaz, im gonna look into those youtube videos in a bit...

but what do u mean when you say..

I truely believe all these advances in technology/embracing artificial intelligence/trying to play God will unequivocally end in a singularity/asymptote.

its not really an opinion or a belief isit lol, its more of a fact. the singularity and that graph u posted just means the point where intellegence will shoot up and grow exponentially. i cant see how thats a bad thing, surely thats good? or shoudl we throw out or computers, ps3's and HD TV's because were moving aaway from the "natural path" and the conditions which nature intended for our species to live? (in that case we should probably go back to the jungle and hunt).

should a person who has lost a limb, or in need of a pacemaker, reject such an item and accept that nature "selected" them to be disadvantaged and weave them out? its in our nature to make choices to survive and better ourselves, you cant repress years of instinct. ironically it is this instinct developed by nature thats driving us to create our own nature essentially.

Cool but yeah, I was just stating a fact but because I haven't read all the research behind it, what I had read was sufficient for me to truely believe in it.

Yes, WE ALL NEED TO JUST ACCEPT WHAT WE ARE & let nature determine our destiny. However, on some levels I'm all for certain changes as long as it doesn't fundamentality change our natural state. Once we start drastically replacing parts of us with machinery/artificial evolution, the human aspects of us will rapidly perish. We are talking within 10 years may I add and to me that is f*cked. As far as I'm concerned until we started f*ck*ng around trying to play God, the human body was and is perfect.

Yes I agree with you on some levels when you said 'its in our nature to make choices to survive and better ourselves, you cant repress years of instinct.' etc BUT did you ever stop to think about the agenders of those that are in the driving seats of these advances? The reasons why they want us to distance ourselfs from our natural self? I mean don't get it twisted for one second that all these advances are/will be for the good of us all & it will benefit us all. The world is strongly unbalanced as it is, it's only going to get worse.

Spiderman how can you not see the badness/wrongs in what is already a reality and getting worse? Without me spelling it out can you not envision how even more f*cked up the world will get when change approaches infinity? I don't know about you be that graph had me shook when I first layed me eyes upon it. Can you even imagine living in a world where change is so fast that you can't even react to it? What good can that have for us?

The world as a whole needs to exist in a equilibrium and all these advances especially in the last 50 years has GREATLY unbalanced nature.

[spiderman]

i understand your point of views. im impressed this discussion has gone this far, it means this thread was worth making. respect to those putting in positive input.

without turning this into an essay war, im gna just close this discussion now because it would just go on forever, and the major aspects have been covered well. besides its all an opinion for now on what could be, you cant argue against an opinion because its just that.

my conclusion is that basically like smaddy said, we have made loads of assumptions and things could change, there is no certainty of any outcomes yet. fundamentally it will come down to how society acts overall (with its mixed values); the technology may be there but it could be used in so many different ways for good and for bad. i agree with the notion of "equilibrium", and it will definately move us off ours; but to a better or worse one, we dont know. our society and civilisation isnt really ready yet, at all, for this kind of responsibility. the idea has potential (i suppose thats where my arguement has come from), but whether we could fulfill it is another question.