>born too early to be born as an immortal AI
Now I am stuck in this useless body which will deteriorate until I die
Bro, you're pretty negative brah, have you tried raising your density so that you too, can enjoy snizz on the reg?
You don't deserve to be an immortal AI. Instead of being a waste of physical space, you would just be a waste of data or something.
>>27461500
I don't follow this. It's easier to cure/improve personalities in mechanical bodies than it is with biological bodies. I could be a chad or genius in a matter of a mouse click.
Longevity is overrated.
Why the fuck would you want to live forever?
Also, as an android, you would be unable to feel anything. No fucking, no enjoying nice foods, nothing. Unless you think that we will be able to endow mechanical devices with human senses.
Personally I plan to freeze myself in my 60s until it's possible to transfer myself.
>>27461608
>Why the fuck would you want to live forever?
Because life is literally the only thing that is?
>>27461608
>Why the fuck would you want to live forever?
We are build to survive. Think about it. Any disparity in your thoughts is abnormal.
>Also, as an android, you would be unable to feel anything
The theory is that human mind works via cause and effect which is replicable through simulations. This means that emotions and thoughts and anything that comes with being a human can be reproduced.
And science currently suggests that this is the case.
>>27461652
>Because life is literally the only thing that is?
I can imagine things to which nothingness would be preferable.
>>27461711
They are almost all temporary, especially with an artificial body.
>>27461698
>We are build to survive.
This is a meaningless statement. We are "built" to last for about 30 years at best. A time limit which we have already extended. I can only speak for myself, but I have absolutely no desire to extend it even further. I don't think of myself as abnormal.
>>27461738
I disagree. I don't imagine myself being happy, outliving my natural lifespan and being confined to some machine.
>>27461757
>but I have absolutely no desire to extend it even further.
Probably because your brain is wired to see death as a religious necessity. It is my conviction that people who accept death and deny the reasons for prolonging ones life never internalized death conceptually. But to each his own.
Besides I wasn't talking about the mere biological urge for survival. I am speaking about learning all mysteries about life and the universe. How is uncovering all knowledge possible if you die?
>>27461892
I am not of a religious inclination, so you're mistaken there.
>never internalized death conceptually
I have to admit, I do not know what you mean by this.
>How is uncovering all knowledge possible if you die?
Well, when you die, your offspring will continue where you left off. The next generation will build on top of what all the previous generations combined have left behind. Immortality is not required.
>born too late to be a sea pirate
>born too early to be a space pirate
>>27462019
>born too late to be a sea pirate
Pirates are still out there, you will be glad to know.
Though they aren't quite like the pirates you have in mind. But if I'm not mistaken, then the sort of pirates you are thinking of never really existed.
>>27461947
I fail to see death as a rational thing, hence why I added the term religious. I don't think you are, but apparently you treat it death like one.
You did not correctly respond to my comment about knowledge. If you die you do not survive to experience technological advancement. How is immortality not required in this situation?
>>27461315
I'm 23 and already don't want to exist anymore. I'm not saying I want to an hero I just want it to be like before I was born. That sweet nothing. If the world is this shit now imagine how bad it'll be in a couple hundred years lads. If anything not being able to become immortal is a kindness
>>27462075
>I fail to see death as a rational thing
Seems pretty rational to me. I am quite fond of my frail human body. Even when it starts to wear down, I don't think I will have any desire to transfer my consciousness to a machine. It seems to me like a pathetic existance.
>If you die you do not survive to experience technological advancement.
I was talking about the human race, not individuals in it. The human race can keep learning, the immortality of the individual is in no way required.
>>27462156
>It seems to me like a pathetic existance.
How? Why?
>the immortality of the individual is in no way required.
Obviously you meant mankind and not the individuals. But consider my assumptions and respond to them.
>>27462202
>How? Why?
For the same reason I find fat people who can't even move without the aid of a machine to be pathetic.
>Obviously you meant mankind and not the individuals. But consider my assumptions and respond to them.
If you really want to be able to hang around and witness it all yourself, then, yes, you would need to be immortal. I can't really disagree there. Nevertheless, all I want to point out is that you are just a single cog in the machine, and it is of no benefit to humanity in general, if you live forever. It's just your own selfish desire.
I know how you feel, OP. The only comforting thing for me is that billions of people already have died, and billions more will still die.
I don't want my consciousness to cease to exist, honestly.
>>27462278
>It's just your own selfish desire.
There are good reasons to believe that any kind of altruism is in reality a response of selfish brains.
>>27462278
How is that a valid analogy? I fear we define AI as two different things. To clear up: I mean AI as in a walking mechanical human being with all the features that come with being human, without the biological self-destruction timer we currently have.
>>27462365
>There are good reasons to believe that any kind of altruism is in reality a response of selfish brains.
This is a sentiment I have often heard, but it has, more or less, been disproven. I encourage you to look up the counter arguments against it.
>How is that a valid analogy?
It seems pretty valid to me. A fat guy on his scooter(or whatever you call them) is capable of moving faster than a normal human can walk, so you might as well argue that that is the way of the future.
>>27462422
Unfortunately your analogy is even more confusing after your respond. I don't think what you said about altruism is true, but if I ever come to an argument disproving it I will gladly accept it.
>>27462533
Well, in a nutshell, people occasionaly help others, even i there is nothing to be gained.
Helping others makes you feel good. And I assume you would say that this is, in and of itself, selfish. I would disagree. The fact that helping people makes me feel good, without any measurable gain, to me proves that altruism does exist.
>>27462606
>The fact that helping people makes me feel good, without any measurable gain,
How is your uplifted mental health not a measurable gain? Would people help others if altruism produced some kind of pain? Clearly there must be an incentive for people to behave out of 'selflessness'.
I think altruism exist, but its fundamental nature is purely selfish.
>>27462713
The fact that my mental health benefits from helping others confirms that altruism exists, as far as I'm concerned.
>>27462741
I agree, you can describe helping others as altruism. However altruism also deals with the cause of the helping act so helping can never be true altruistic because the cause is selfish behavior.
>>27462877
Allow me to rephrase:
I think the good feeling you have from helping others IS altruism. The very reason why you think altruism is selfish is the same reason why I think it is genuine.
>>27461315
You'll live long enough to experience upgrading your biological body with electronic parts until the point where your functions and counciousness are completely working on only your technological parts, and therefore you can at this point abandon the remaining bits of biochemical parts, is reached which will basically result in you being an immortal, silicium-semiconductor and quantum-mechanics-operating System being.
We have around 50 years left to enjoy the life of real human beans, but from then on we will continue to carry the universe's final destiny forward.
>yfw the human species was brought to life by the Universe to save the Universe itself by creating the will to live on and added ability to work upon that - it's only a matter of time until time itself vanishes and the Universe at all costs will be saved for all eternity to continue on existing
>>27462927
>I think the good feeling you have from helping others IS altruism
I don't think this is what the definition of altruism entails. At this point we are arguing about semantics.
>>27461315
tell me about this shit ;-;
you'll never command a robot army to fight off invading hordes of death machines from some idistnat point in the universe. you'll never see a beam of light fracture earths crust spilling lava miles into the sky.
>>27463018
>At this point we are arguing about semantics
Not quite. I submit to you that we have drawn different conclusions from the same observations.
>>27461947
>Children
Fuck off I'm the end of my genetic line, I get to live forever. Fuck the luddites who would kill people by not allowing them to live forever.
>>27463063
Well I am pretty interested in as to how those different conclusions came to be. As I already explained I am confident that our disparity in thoughts resulted from different definitions. But I am not sure if you want to indulge into this question further, because discussion about semantics are often disappointingly boring.
>>27463090
>I'm the end of my genetic line
Oddly enough, I don't doubt this.
>>27463136
It is your opinion that altruism isn't genuine, because we feel good by helping others, hence, the only reason we help others is because it makes us feel good.
It is my oppinion that feeling good by helping others is the purest form of altruism.
In your worldview, the only way altruism could be real is if helping others made us miserable, and we did it anyway.
>>27463188
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/altruism
>Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
I don't deny that altruism exist. But how is the concern for others selfless when your body clearly rewards you with positive gains when being altruistic?
>>27463244
You haven't quite understood what I'm trying to say.
The fact that helping others makes you feel good is precisely why it is selfless. If there is no measurable, material gain to be had, then the good feeling you get from it proves the selflessness of it.
People have been known to help others at a great cost to themselves, be it their wealth, social status, or general wellbeing. The fact that you would be willing to trade these things, that have an objectively measurable worth, for the good feeling you have from helping others is all the proof I need.
>>27463323
But how does this proof work logically. How does the good feeling prove selflessness? It does appear selfish, no? Maybe your definition of selfishness differs from mine.
>>27463157
Whats so fucking odd about it? You're on R9K aren't you?!
>>27462046
Wrong. Those kinds of pirates did exist. I've read a number of historical accounts, and they were pretty based senpai. Truly roving sea badasses. They almost all had std's though so might not be as fun as you think.
>>27463090
You will never experience the greatest mystery that this existance has in store for us. Death is truly the greatest adventure any of us will ever undertake. I personally believe that consciousness is always reassigned, though to where I have no idea.
>>27463363
>How does the good feeling prove selflessness?
Because if you didn't get a good feeling from it, then it wouldn't be selfless.
The way you look at the world makes the very concept of altruism impossible. We feel good by helping others. As I've said before, I consider this to be positive proof of the existance of altruism.
But, riddle me this:
Let's say that true altruism doesn't exist. If you were god and you were to design intelligent beings, what is your criteria for true altruism? If you could have things your way, how would you define true altruism?
In other words, state the requirements that would constitute true altruism.
>>27463434
That's kind of what I was refering to. If you have STDs, scurvy and other diseases, if you spend your time raiding villages and raping, if you never accumulate any sort of real wealth, if you live a short life, which, for the vast majority of them ended in a beheading, then you aren't really living up to the "mischevious adventurer of the sea" thing. Piracy wasn't about sailing the world with your friends, while drinking rum and singing sea shanties. It was a short, pathetic existance.
>>27463519
I'm sure it was fun while it lasted. People were a hell of a lot tougher back then. Also consider that life sucked for pretty much everyone at that time.
>>27463572
>I'm sure it was fun while it lasted.
I don't see how you can say this, after everything we have established. So, you reckon that being riddled with diseases, living off a shitty diet, and dying at a young age, with nothing to show for it, is "fun" ?
>Also consider that life sucked for pretty much everyone at that time.
Yes, but even more so for pirates.
>>27462973
>0 responses
I feel lonely.
>>27463657
Well, 50 years is being a bit generous, I find. Technology is advancing fast, but nowhere near that fast.
Plus, in order for there to be procreation, people will still need to be born and live as organic beings. Otherwise, no one will be born, and humanity will consist only of 1 group of people forever, without any new people being born. Which would suck.
>>27463474
Good feelings are by design selfish so I don't see your argument here.
>If you were god and you were to design intelligent beings, what is your criteria for true altruism? If you could have things your way, how would you define true altruism?
I already posted the definition of altruism. I am not arguing for "my" definition of altruism. I simply point out the incoherent idea that it truly exist as a cause of selfishness
.
My problem is that you somehow can get away with defining good feelings as selfless whereas you didn't argue why this is the case.
>>27463860
Ok, I'm tired now. Stay edgy, faggot.
>>27463900
I wish you could've explained your reasoning and logic behind your definition. But I have not anticipated this discussion would result in derogatory terms.
In the end you failed to give a coherent explanation as how your redefinition of selfless good feelings had any merit.
>>27463943
> I have not anticipated this discussion would result in derogatory terms
Life is full of unexpected twists and turns, bro.
>>27463734
What if we start emulating DNA Code to create offsprings on otherwise "emtpy" Hardware afterwards?
The hardest part is getting Information from our processing brain into Silicium nanomembrane chips. That accomplished, we can outsource everything from then on - which may result in the biological being ceasing to exist, but the counciousness can from then on seamlessly be transferred into more powerful Hardware than our biological counterparts. Just think what 50 years can make if you watch it from 1970 to 2020, including the growing speed of evolvment in that Graph.
>>27464007
>What if we start emulating DNA Code to create offsprings on otherwise "emtpy" Hardware afterwards?
If you could do that, then these "artificial humans" would turn out however you wanted them to. This makes me uneasy, if you could just fill society with artificially crafted humans.
And while 50 years is a considerable period of time for technological advances, what we are talking about here is very far out of our current reach. Just creating hardware capable of containing all the information a brain houses, and having it actually process that information is well beyond our reach right now. And our understanding of the human brain, or lack thereof, is an even bigger obstacle, one that I don't see us overcoming within the next century.
>>27464157
We fact is we don't know and technical advancement could happen sooner as we thought or it could take centuries.
>>27463967
So you cannot backup your definition... Then why did you even decide to use a different definition from the beginning. Why not use the definition we are given already. It seems we did argue about semantics all the time.
Additionally I still don't understand your take on why artificial life is pathetic.
>>27461608
>Unless you think that we will be able to endow mechanical devices with human senses.
A lot of technology for this already exists, or is in development.
The real hurdle for the technology is successfully integrating it with the human nervous system, so that the brain can receive meaningful information from the sensors.
The human brain is really really really really complicated.
>>27461608
Assuming you believe there is nothing after death, why wouldn't you want to live forever?
Who are you faggots? Endless life sounds like hell to me. I don't even want to live to the end of my natural lifespan at this point.
>>27464157
They could turn out the way I want then to, but also would still be sentient beings of their own at that same time, which is why I'm not questioning free will at this point. My parents are wanting me to be a certain way for 22 years now, with severe pressure in their hands by finances, food, clothing, housing and so on from birth. A robot can move and live on its own if given the ability once - and what are purpose and definition of life, anyways? I don't need my biological barriers. They are stopping me from saving existence istelf.
12tb SSD proclaimed to save more than 5.7 human brains with its storage, which I HIGHLY doubt as I'm already at 11tb HDD storage data for personal use only which I created and consumed more than once already at full levels by myself. Data encryption into crystal Material and following techniques already show the potential of creating storage "singularities" within our actual lifetime. Remember something around 272TB in a 12.5cm disk. (Not that sure about recalling the numbers correctly now but it's more than hundred times more than my personal storage as it said in an article I read some weeks ago.
>>27461315
When you die, donate your body to science. Hopefully they pull a soma and your brain will be copypasted into some AI and that copy of you can live on
Nah, OP. If you're 30 or less right now, you were born right in time to be reborn as an immortal robot.
>complete brain mapping coming soon
>brain data accessing soon after
>uploading information to brain after that
And that's how the singularity begins: anyone who wants to uploads their consciousness to the "cloud" into a single superintellogent organism. You could then also transfer your consciousness to a robot or stay completely digital. Just give it 30 years~
