21 May 11
Originally posted by mikelom1
using carbon nanotubes.
Nanotechnology moves on and on in leaps and bounds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421151921.htm
Fascinating development.
-m.
Question in the XXI centure:
Who needs "mental telepathy" when we have cell phones?
2
Question in the XXII century.
Who needs "men" when we have ‘robots‘ ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421151921.htm
====.
21 May 11
Originally posted by israelsocratusMen will be designing robots for thousands of years to come.
1
Question in the XXI centure:
Who needs "mental telepathy" when we have cell phones?
2
Question in the XXII century.
Who needs "men" when we have ‘robots‘ ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421151921.htm
====.
Robots are neanderthal! 😛
-m.
30 May 11
Originally posted by mikelomPretty clever then! I understood a good laptop cannot yet match a cockroach. Neanderthal was next best only to Homo Sapiens. Mind you we could inter-breed with Neanderthal according to some genetic evidence - how will that work for robots? (Please don't answer that in the obvious, cockroach level manner!).
Robots are neanderthal! 😛
30 May 11
Originally posted by mikelomOne day robots will be cleverer than us.
Men will be designing robots for thousands of years to come.
Robots are neanderthal! 😛
-m.
Then men will not be making robots but robots will be making robots and robots will be telling us what to do and we will serve under them.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
31 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe're still not even sure whether Neanderthal man was Homo Neanderthalensis, a separate but closely related species, or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, a sub-species of "normal" humans (with modern man being H.S. Sapiens). One thing we do know, though. Humans with modern characteristics survived; those with Neanderthal characteristics either died out or were assimilated into the current gene pool. So, yes, for practical purposes we can say that they did come second to us.
I believe his brain was bigger. We have no evidence for his intelligence, so I think it is unwarranted to claim he was second to Homo Sapiens.
Richard
31 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganthey may not have become extinct because of lesser intelligence (but I am not sure if you implied this but I will continue as if you did) . For all we know, the only reason why Neanderthals died out was because of their physical characteristics of being shorter and stockier; great for ambush-hunting and surviving in freezing cold forests but not so good for surviving and hunting involving running at speed for long distances in warm drought-prone open grassland that gradually replaced all that freezing cold forests as the ice-age ended. Modern humans were slimmer, taller and built to run longer distances and faster than Neanderthals and this would have given them a huge competitive survival advantage even if they had no overall intelligence advantage.
Pretty clever then! I understood a good laptop cannot yet match a cockroach. Neanderthal was next best only to Homo Sapiens. Mind you we could inter-breed with Neanderthal according to some genetic evidence - how will that work for robots? (Please don't answer that in the obvious, cockroach level manner!).
Also, there is the possibility than they eventually became “extinct” simply through interbreeding with modern humans until Neanderthals-kind totally lost its genetic distinctiveness although there is no strong evidence for that that I am aware of.
Either way, it may not have been something to do with their intelligence that caused them to become extinct.
31 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe human race's hunger for survival will never let that happen. We would destroy all technology before we let robots rule us.
One day robots will be cleverer than us.
Then men will not be making robots but robots will be making robots and robots will be telling us what to do and we will serve under them.
01 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Actually I said that as a kind of half-joke-half-serious statement (with the “and we will serve under them” part being more of the joke-half part );
The human race's hunger for survival will never let that happen. We would destroy all technology before we let robots rule us.
“...The human race's hunger for survival will never let that happen. ...”
arr, but what if they becoming cleverer than us and ruling over us is not only NOT in conflict with our survival but actually helps our survival because they are programmed to benefit and protect us?
Then I think, in that scenario, it would be conceivable that, providing we are reasonably rational (which we might not be) , that we may gladly let them take over control of our society and economy and even the whole world. The human politicians would, obviously, not like that! And would surely protest especially the power-hungry ones.
01 Jun 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere is no survival without challenge... but thats more philisophical. Basically, we wouldn't survive if we didn't have to do anything.
Actually I said that as a kind of half-joke-half-serious statement (with the “and we will serve under them” part being more of the joke-half part );
“...The human race's hunger for survival will never let that happen. ...”
arr, but what if they becoming cleverer than us and ruling over us is not only NOT in conflict with our survival but actual ...[text shortened]... ld, obviously, not like that! And would surely protest especially the power-hungry ones.
04 Jun 11
Originally posted by tomtom232I don't see how robots ruling over us would make as have nothing to do or have no challenges.
There is no survival without challenge... but thats more philisophical. Basically, we wouldn't survive if we didn't have to do anything.
After all, currently human politicians ruling over us and yet we seem to still have things to do and have challenges.
How would merely swapping one of our rulers with another necessarily make a significant difference there?
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by mikelomThis project is doomed to fail, if the ultimate goal is to reproduce the intentionality of human consciousness.
using carbon nanotubes.
Nanotechnology moves on and on in leaps and bounds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421151921.htm
Fascinating development.
-m.
23 Jun 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasAn interesting position. While such a result may be extremely difficult to achieve using anything other than brain matter produced in the normal manner, I don't believe there is any physical law that precludes the creation of a mind using other materials or methods. Do you know of such a law? Or are you just (understandably) pessimistic about the outcome?
This project is doomed to fail, if the ultimate goal is to reproduce the intentionality of human consciousness.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by PBE6It is one thing to create a brain, quite another to create a mind. The presumption is that the mind is reducible to causal relationships between neurons, and so proliferating neurons should do the trick. But the efficacy of conscious mental effort rewiring the brain (evident in the treatment of OCD pioneered by Jeffrey Schwartz), for instance, suggests that consciousness itself exerts its own influence, quite apart from the standard causal relationship between neural structures. Various regions of the brain, obviously, are dedicated to certain tasks, but reproducing their function, in itself, does not guarantee consciousness—much less causally efficacious consciousness. Apart from the obvious difficulty involved in the recreation of large-scale neuroplasticity, I don't think there is any law which precludes minds existing in brains dissimilar to our own, only that, if such minds exist, they cannot be reduced to their physical components (no more than, say, a painting can be reduced to its material components)—so even if the intentionality of consciousness is eventually reproduced synthetically, this would not vindicate a materialistic theory of mind.
An interesting position. While such a result may be extremely difficult to achieve using anything other than brain matter produced in the normal manner, I don't believe there is any physical law that precludes the creation of a mind using other materials or methods. Do you know of such a law? Or are you just (understandably) pessimistic about the outcome?