Living Machines

Here is that TED talk I referrenced before. It is one of my favorites.


@Ionus
Reproducing is a means a of passing successful traits in genes. Reproduction is not the only means to propagate successful temes however. We shouldn't limit evolutionary principles to reproduction, because reproduction is just the mechanism for organic beings to pass on traits.

A
R
Temes, genes, memes

That would make it parasitic but I am not convinced it is life as some proteins do the same thing. Ideas are not alive by our standard definitions now, unless you want to change those concepts to include temes.

Nope, a mule is sterile.

This is a good reply.

However, as with all things biological, it's all about the averages. The fact that it is possible to produce an anomaly such as a mule does not negate the statistical "fact" of life being defined as based on the capacity to replicate.

Biology aint physics. It only has to "work" on the average

I am keeping it "Asimovian". I am just trying to toss in both sides of paranoia with embracing technology. Common fears with merging technology with every day human living.

I love technology, and I even think about the ways that intelligent computers will come about. I think we are on the cusp of it's arising, but I see those who are working on it's development paralleling those inventors who were trying to get us to fly. We currently are using the wrong design, the human brain as the basis of how to develop intelligence, but I think the actual successful solution will not be based off the human brain or function. It will be a solution that uses the process of intelligence just like flight. When we understood the principles behind lift and drag we developed a method that allows us to fly. The same will happen with computer intelligence. When we understand the principles of thinking, learning and the intellect we will become successful in the design.

But with that we will have to face ourselves. You can call me crazy or wacko or think I am nuts or paranoid but honestly intelligent computers have the ability to over take human skills. Why would someone want to hire a person for a task that an intelligent computer can do, faster, longer and without complaining? In a way this could be good for humanity, it will free us up even more to do the things we want to do. Sort of like when we went from being hunter gatherers to farmers. We were free to develop other skills, such as astronomy and horticulture. If the intelligent computers take over tasks that we don't want to do, it might bring humanity together freeing us up to live happier, perhaps healthier or even lazier lives. Or the worse case scenario is that intelligent computers see humans as a thorn in it's side and determines us to in the way. Just like we do with animals.

"Oh there is a whole forest here of living animals native to this one tiny area? Well it's going to have a bad day because we are making a parking lot today!"

We don't care about the planet, if the oil spill is any sign of just how much we don't care what else would reveal that? We totally think we own the planet and think we don't need it. We are completely separate from the planet and it is lucky to have us here, is how most of us view it.

What makes you think that intelligent computers would consider us as being necessary? It more than likely wouldn't care about humans. If you try to program it in to respect or not harm humans it won't work if you try to make it a thinking, learning machine. It will just find a way around the program. You won't be able to design in a "kill switch" with intelligent computers, because if they are truly "intelligent" they will find a way around it. Think of them as being their own hackers, if there is a way to code it, there is a way to decode it.

But like I said, I am not worried, humanity is inferior but it loves to believe that it is superior to everything.

And we have muleness due to life that can reproduce. If it was up to mules they wouldnt exist.

I'm just having sport with the Asimov/Wachowski bit. I knew you got it.


This deserves to be repeated. I fully agree. I might go further and aver that this is the heart of the issue.

I once wrote an essay about if man or machine could produce a scarier monster. My thesis is that ALL monsters are representations of human behaviors/desires. Therefore, a view that robots could have monstrous qualities is the fear of some element of a robot, the least of which I would suspect is the intelligence.

A
R
T

Scarier than Hitler or Stalin ????