Summer means no religion or politics?

[Nacho]

Missquote me again and the wrath of the psycho kid will fall upon you!!!

[Adrian  ]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/23/synthetic-brain-project-consciousness

I'd be impressed if they can replicate the human consciousness in computers, the potential is limitless. What would this mean for religion though, proof that the human consciousness or soul is just the result of millions of cells working in tangent. The result of evolution and science.

I just hope we learn how to transfer consciousness in our life times, so that I could live on in a Futurama style jar or as a robot Nixon. I'm not keen on this idea of dying.

[Snarky]

I saw that news as well, and I agree that one day, the ability to show human-level intelligence and apparent consciousness in a machine will have major philosophical and theological implications.

For now, it's worth keeping in mind that even if we can simulate a human brain in a computer, that doesn't automatically mean that we can create a recognizable human mind. The normal development of a person's mental capacity is closely linked to sensory input and external stimuli, receiving appropriate feedback in response to one's actions, and other biological processes in the body but outside of the brain. Most likely, the first computer-simulated brains would be catatonic, autistic, psychotic and/or severely "brain-damaged". In fact, the ethical dimensions of these experiments should be carefully considered. Once you create a brain in the computer, is it OK to turn it off? I think this will prove to be far trickier moral ground than cloning is.

[Azaron]

</lurk>
That's a good point, Snarky. I don't think a lot of people are really thinking about the moral implications of creating a computer mind. In fact, if you go back and look at scientific advances in our past, I think you'll find the moral implications are almost never considered until the action has been taken. Yay hindsight! Such is the way with us though, I suppose.
I see the situation going down like this: A group of scientists who have been working their entire professional lives on this problem finally get it right and create an autistic, partially psychotic thinking box and decide that it's probably too dangerous to be left on, but before they can turn it off you've got new Thinking Box Rights Advocates taking them to court to keep the thing on, then it goes to the supreme court (assuming it's done in the US, which it probably won't be because we suck anymore, but that's a different discussion). The Supreme Court will likely refuse to hear the case until it has been an issue for quite some time (they don't like to take the lead on decisions anymore). In the meantime the Psycho Box will remain on, and activists will convince lower bleeding- heart courts to give it access to the internet so it can be among its peers and next thing you know Skynet is knocking on our door.
I'm being facetious, obviously, but except for the part about Skynet I really wouldn't be surprised.
If anyone ever cared what my opinion on things was, and they rightly don't, I would say that if we make it we can terminate it if it proves dangerous or unwieldy. It's just the common-sense thing to me. But a lot of the people I know call me a cold-hearted bastard when discussions about this sort of thing come up, so I'm not really one to speak for others. For example, with the questions asked a long while back about the 5 people on the railroad track and sacrificing one life to save theirs, it would not be worth it, imho. Given that there was no information given to the contrary, I would have to assume that all 5 of those people, or at least one of them, was perfectly capable of detecting a speeding train long before it hit them, so I would not interfere. If they don't have the common sense to step out of the way, who am I to do the work for them?
Sorry for the long post. Just got caught up in this thread for some reason....

<lurk>

[Matti]

If anyone ever cared what my opinion on things was, and they rightly don't, I would say that if we make it we can terminate it if it proves dangerous or unwieldy. It's just the common-sense thing to me. But a lot of the people I know call me a cold-hearted bastard when discussions about this sort of thing come up, so I'm not really one to speak for others.

That is indeed common sense. Why not shut down a machine that was built by you before and proofed to be useless or even dangerous? There's no sense in NOT doing that.

And I gotta say, the future scenario you created, where intelligent computer minds are treated as human beings, is Science-fiction a là Stanislav Lem, but is VERY unlikely to happen, as long as mankind isn't suddenly turning crazy. I neither believe in that nor in the possibility of creating machines that even come close to humans.

[RickJ]

... if they can replicate the human consciousness in computers...  What would this mean for religion though, proof that the human consciousness or soul is just the result of millions of cells working in tangent.

Yeah, but what if the newly created human consciousness also has religious beliefs? 

[miguel]

Yes, what IF those experiments did prove that in order to function as we perceive normal, the virtual brain would need a higher presence?
What would be of civilized world?
What if science does get to a point where they've tried everything to exclude God of the equation and find out it is not possible?
It's just a question not futurology.

[Snarky]

If anyone ever cared what my opinion on things was, and they rightly don't, I would say that if we make it we can terminate it if it proves dangerous or unwieldy. It's just the common-sense thing to me. But a lot of the people I know call me a cold-hearted bastard when discussions about this sort of thing come up, so I'm not really one to speak for others.

That is indeed common sense. Why not shut down a machine that was built by you before and proofed to be useless or even dangerous? There's no sense in NOT doing that.

Uh, because it's a machine with a human brain and with consciousness? Do you support the right of parents to kill their kids?

And I gotta say, the future scenario you created, where intelligent computer minds are treated as human beings, is Science-fiction a là Stanislav Lem, but is VERY unlikely to happen, as long as mankind isn't suddenly turning crazy. I neither believe in that nor in the possibility of creating machines that even come close to humans.

I'm convinced that creating computer minds that closely resemble or even exceed human ones is possible in principle. There is overwhelming evidence that our minds are a product of our brains (as situated within our bodies and our environments), and that our brains work according to natural processes that we largely understand and can simulate. Therefore, building an artificial brain is just a question of difficulty. It's hard to know how long it might take: are we ten years away or a hundred, but I would bet that it WILL happen.

How to treat conscious computer minds once they exist will be a huge moral quandary. To me it's pretty obvious that if you have something that thinks and feels like a human, it has rights the same way a human does, and you shouldn't be allow to enslave, torture or kill it. It gets tricky because computer minds would be both extraordinarily vulnerable and extraordinarily capable. On the one hand, they could be kept in a simulated environment completely at the mercy of someone flipping a power switch, and there could be a daily holocaust going on on some guy's laptop without anyone outside having a clue. On the other hand, a computer mind could be backed up, it could duplicate itself, it could propagate wirelessly over the Internet, it might be able to communicate and think at many times the speed of a regular person, and it could grow and develop without any of our physical limitations--particularly that of a limited life-span. In many ways, it would be--at least potentially--an alien life form.

I think these issues are being considered, particularly in science fiction, but there the needs of drama mean that most of the attention is on less relevant scenarios like SKYNET or robots (or replicants, cylons). There should be a debate about what rights we are willing to grant non-biological lifeforms and intelligences.

[Phemar]

Do you support the right of parents to kill their kids?

If their kids are machines, then yes.

[Nacho]

Do you support the right of parents to kill their kids?

Well... God did it...

[discordance]

Or maybe we already ARE the machines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor

[Ghost]

Well... God did it...

So he does exist, then? You're very supportive of the fact.

[Nacho]

Ghost: Apparently, that leaves two alternatives to me...

1) He does not exist.

2) He exist, but he is a &$%·#!!!.

[Adrian  ]

Or maybe we already ARE the machines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor

lol I like how you think, I'm going to watch that

[Ghost]

I don't quite get what you're trying to say there, Nacho. Then again, I hardly expected to.

If I followed this thread (and the other religious threads) correctly, you claim yourself a sort of atheist, or non-believer, or whatever currently fits your mood or line of argument.
Yet you repeatedly used the "god did this or that" bullet (again, mostly if it happens to fit as a beat-it-all holy handgranade).

I still say that I enjoy these threads, if nothing else they are communication, and anyone with a strong opinion (who is is always entitled to have) can only add to it.
But why this slippery-fish approach? Just to always be the deadpan snarker? That's really all that nags me.

[MrColossal]

I think he means god killed children so why can't other parents.

[Misj']

If our kids are not as perfect as we wanted, can we kill them drowning them in the bath tube?

God did not drown Jesus in a bath tube. He drowned his kids in the Deluge... That' s what I call a super-dad!

I think he means god killed children so why can't other parents.

Quick remark (I have time for that ):
Yeah, imagine Hitler's father killing Hitler during WWII ? - We would all consider that an act of evil, now wouldn't we?

[Nacho]

I think he means god killed children so why can't other parents.

Not actually just children. He killed his sons, his creations, adults, old people, kids, babies: Because "they were not good, what he expected them to be...". It's not what I would expect of a God full of mercy and all the stuff, you know? But well... Some histories in the bible do not have a lot of sense if you think of it a bit...

[Misj']

And just imagine a doctor who claims to value life but cuts out cancer cells to 'allegedly' save the body. That doesn't sound like someone valuing life now does it? - I mean: he's killing of all those living cancer cells because they would somehow be a threat. There's really no sense in that if you come to think about it, now is there?

So who would want such a guy as his doctor? - Let alone accept (and follow) his advice on how to live a healthy life.

[MrColossal]

That's a pretty poor argument against genocide in the bible as perpetuated by God, Misj.

Are you honestly equating the story of God flooding the world with a doctor removing a tumor or just saying something to keep an argument going?