You can carry your bias’ with you, but for me, I actively work to limit my bias’ effects, or erradicate them entirely. As for the imagination thing: well, I never discounted the idea of biotechnology. I never said “of course not because such things don’t exist yet and, in fact, may never exist.” Like you said about machine technology. You see, my bias doesn’t limit my imagination to things I WANT to believe in.
From your posts, I can see that you don’t LIKE the idea of machine intelligence or uploads, so you refuse to believe in the very possiblity. Very close minded. My imagination doesn’t limit my acceptance of things. I accept the fact that such technology may not be possible, I accept that biotechnology may very well be just as powerful. Or more so.
[quote]
You mean the entire space program, Spacelab, Mir, and the current International Space Station were faked or something? People can live in space. They can’t live unaided in space, technology is required. For that matter, we require technology to live near the Artic circle - but people have done so for thousands of years.
[/quote
Yeah, they had oxygen and protection from radiation. People that went to the moon are pretty much all dead of cancer. Passing through the Van Allen belt irradated them with high energy particles trapped in that field.
Humans need oxygen. Human bodies break down and create complications when living for long periods of time without gravity.
Yes, the trend has been that way. The trend has also been to make people that are worse off than others to be equal to everybody else, not to make em better. Trends change though, and so do peoples values. 1000 years is a long time. Hell, 200 years is a long time. A lot of trends will crop up, die off, and be replaced by other ones.
I fully believe that cyborgs will come. And then the trend may shift towards a full conversion. Again, you think in terms of one change and then an equilibrium in which people no longer change ideas or values. Cyborgs are happening today. Cyborgs will be around in the next two or three decades. Chip implants, artificial eyes, teeth and probably things we have traveling around in our blood stream, analysing our health or making us healthier.
What you seem to be saying is that “What is in our near future is what is going to be forever.” Machine uploading isn’t possible today, and isn’t likely in our near future, so it will never be possible, and humans will under no conditions accept it if it does become possible. Is this a fair representation of your position?
According to Mojo Nixon, my personal guru on all things scientifical, as humans evolve they will get more Elvis-like with each generation since Elvis is the perfect being.
That’s why the correct term is elvislution, not evolution.
“Bias” has become such a dirty word - but really, you want to favor some things over others. I’ve developed some caution in my approach to new things because I’ve been around long enough to appreciate that not every new thing is as wonderful as it first appears.
Just because you WANT does not make it so.
I WANT faster-than-light propulsion… but I realize that doesn’t mean I’ll ever get it. It’s not that I can’t imagine it, it’s that I realize reality doesn’t always conform to my wishes. It IS true that machine intelligence does not exist right now. It may or may not be possible, even if possible may or may not ever exist. Imagination doesn’t enter into it, or even my own personal wants and desires.
I WANT cheap, practical, safe nuclear fusion power as well - that doesn’t mean we’ll ever have it, however desireable that may be.
Believe in the possibility? A very remote possibility at this point. I can imagine it, I can enjoy imagining it, but as I said, reality is under no obligation to fulfill my (or your) desires.
Or less so.
Really? Last I heard, Neil Armstrong was very much alive and well, Jim Lovell never actually stood on the moon, but he made the trip there and back twice and he’s still alive last I heard. Which ones, specifically, of the 13 men who have gone to the moon and back died of cancer?
Machines need power. Machines break down and create complications. Many materials used in machinery such as lubricants either boil off or freeze in space. Other items become brittle. In either case, you’re fighting entropy.
Human bodies lose bone and muscle mass when under zero-g for several months, but we’re still studying long term effects. So far, returning astronauts have been able to regain that muscle and bone after they return - we don’t know if there’s a point of no return or not. The loss of muscle and bone is quite simply explained - the body doesn’t need as much bone or muscle under zero-g because the bone isn’t supporting weight and the muscles don’t have to work against gravity.
As much as I would like human beings to be able to live long-term in space without artificial gravity, as much as I can imagine it, I also realize that not only can we not do so at present, we may never be able to do so, even with the aid of genetic engineering. Our choices may be a lifetime in a gravity field, or a lifetime out of it, but no commuting willy-nilly back and forth.
You can imagine intelligent machines and human mind uploads - that doesn’t make it possible. Or impossible.
Largely because we haven’t the technology to make anyone better than the norm. We can improve the lot of some people - we can raise the bar of normal. Not yet.
As just one example - I live with someone who has had most of the bone in his lower right leg replaced with titanium. Now, you may think titanium has some advantages over natural bone - it’s much harder to break, for instance - but it’s got drawbacks, too. As just one - it explands and contracts much more than bone does when then temperature changes. This causes problems - pain, throwing off stride because a leg is longer or shorter than it should be, artficial joints don’t function nearly as well under temperature extremes… Sure, it’s better than if he had lost the leg and had to depend entirely on an artificial prosthetic, but there’s no advantage in substituting metal for bone beyond that.
And there is no way to predict which trends are more likely to succeed and continue than others.
Nope, I think it more likely we’ll retain a variation. It’s like saying everyone has adopted the automobile and telephone and computer. Well… go tell that to the Amish folks living about 20 miles east of me. It’s not ignorance that keeps them in the horse-and-buggy era, it’s choice. They aren’t stupid - they know what cars, phones, and computers are - they made a choice not to use them. I don’t have cable TV myself. It’s not out of ignorance - I’ve seen cable in other people’s homes, and when my family lived in West Virginia we had cable - it’s just that I don’t watch much TV anyhow and I’ve chosen to spend my time and money elsewhere.
I can see a future where having implants or “enhancements” or not is about as big a deal as choosing between between dying your hair or letting its natural gray show. That’s not a comment on how likely I think that future is.
Yes. I know. I’m married to one.
Maybe that’s why the senario you propose doesn’t look quite so rosy to me.
Nope. I think you’re looking for someone to argue with.
I have already stated - several times - that while I think it’s an unlikely future, if it was possible I believe some folks would opt for it and some would not. I don’t believe everyone everywhere would make the same choice.
Ok, so not all of them died. I am definately wrong there, I thought I remembered hearing that most of the origional Apollo and Mercury astronauts were dead of cancer or leukemia (or dying), but I guess that was either a bad memory, or was just wrong.
I don’t know your background with computers or cutting edge technology, but I know mine is pretty up to date. I read Discovery, Scientific American, as well as many web sites dedicated to new technology like space daily, new scientist and betterhumans. I also read quite a bit of related non-fiction. (though somewhat limited due to school) Now, nowhere in any of my reading have I seen that computer technology like what I mentioned will not be possible. Quite the opposite. So if you want to persist in your claims, go right ahead. I personally think they sound a bit amatureish, but I may be wrong in that too. Who knows, perhaps you are a bigger afficianado than myself. But for the readers involved in this thread I thought I would point out that I am not speaking out my ass. Many “experts” feel this way. Now, they all realize just as well as I, that the future is impossible to predict. They only speak in likelyhoods, like you speak. They too feel this is the future. I think you are wrong. Don’t mean to “look” for an argument, just laying out the facts.
I work for a medical research unit. We don’t read websites or popular magazines, we read peer-reviewed journals and primary source research. I’m on a first name basis with some of the cutting edge doctor/scientists currently working in North America.
Yes, there are some wonderful things going on - but all the blessings of medical science are mixed blessings.
The popular magazines need to sell issues - they do it by showcasing the latest whiz-bang technology and a largely optimistic future. They are not very good at displaying failures, ideas that sounded nice and didn’t pan out, and the stuff that’s less fun and cheerful. I enjoy reading them, too, but after about 10 years or so I noticed that a lot of neat ideas were mentioned once or twice and then never again… why is that, hmm? :dubious:
You probably do know more about cutting-edge *computer * science – but I know more about the medical side of these things. It’s not just about the tech - it’s also about the people.
I readjournals for work as well (work in a pharmacy, pharmacy student, etc). I did not mention them because they don’t do any predictions for the future, only talk about studies and current issues. (I also read Nature and Science for pleasure)
I must admit, though, you undoubtedly have much more of a life.
Suppose I strap you into a duplicatioin machine, like the one from Star Trek TOS, where the evil mad scientist makes a robot duplicate of Captain Kirk. When the process is done, you step out of the machine, and a perfect robot duplicate of you also steps out of the machine. The robot has duplicated your memories, emotions, thought patterns, and has an exact duplicate of your brain state.
Now I hand you a gun and tell you that since the robot is essentially you in a brand new improved robot body, the best thing is to kill yourself immediately. After all, the robot version of you will live on indefinately, having experiences a biological human can only imagine. Why should the imperfect biological version go on living?
So are you telling me you’d pull the trigger and splatter your brains all over my nice shiny duplication console?
I understand and agree that if the technology existed plenty of people might create robot or computer duplicates of themselves. What I don’t agree is that they would therefore happily kill the biological versions of themselves. There is a difference between copying a human consciousness into a new conscious entity and uploading a normal computer file. And the difference is that computer files don’t care whether they exist or not. If you copy a file onto a floppy disk, erase it from your hard drive, then copy the file from the floppy back to your hard drive I agree that there is no real difference between the files. They are arguable the same file, although in different locations. But what if the file didn’t want to be erased? What if the file was conscious? I submit there is a difference between erasing a file that doesn’t care whether it is erased and erasing a file that does care.
People aren’t going to kill themselves just because a perhaps superior version of themselves also exists. 4 billion years of evolution won’t let them.
Exclusion of the middle fallacy: People might not kill themselves to make a copy of themselves, but sure would if they were dying and said death could not be reversed. Neither do I think that constant updating of a backup in case the biological version were to die would be shunned.
