Iggy's Debating Society

Yes you're right, 'what is consciousness?' is one of the biggest questions that we have left to answer.

Your first example would give you true AI - technically it wouldn't be human, but it would have exactly the same capacity to think, therefore making it indistinguishable from a real person. I think that you would have to treat it as a person, since as people we are defined by our feelings. And no end of sci-fi films have explored the consequences of not treating our intellectual equals or even superiors as one of us - we all know what happens. This way of transferring consciousness is what I was talking about - maybe the resulting consciousness would be exactly the same as it was before, but at some point you're going to end up with two copies of the same consciousness, and the biological one, you as you are now, will die. Would you transfer your consciousness to an immortal machine knowing that you yourself would still die?

Your second example would give a way of becoming immortal without interrupting the 'flow' of consciousness. I think that you would still remain the same person after going through the process of replacing your body. I think that who we are depends on our consciousness and not our sensory inputs: so as long as the brain is kept alive, then there's no reason why you would cease to be a person. This is assuming that the sensations of touch, sight, smell, taste and sound remain the same despite the use of mechanical instead of biological sensory organs... perhaps a radical change in the way you perceive the world would change you into something different entirely. The ethical implications of such an experiment would be a little steep though, despite the possible gain of immortality. Having said that, if you'd found a way to keep the brain immortal, surely it would be much easier and palatable to just make the rest of the body immortal, too .

Salute,

Well I think Lord'Hughsinkler is saying what you guys are all telling in a very filosofical way, only he is keeping it stupidly simple.

And I agree with that. I think you should not see mind and body as 2. It is just 1.

When you are getting old and have a lot of mementos, your body will make you feel things regarding to what you hear see and smell.
Like when you have fallen in love with a girl and gather all the mementos in your brain, and then when you are 80 years old, and you smell some kind of flower which you have ever given to that girlfriend, the body will give you that exact feeling you had when you were in love with your girfriend. And when you hear someone calling the same name, you still feel it in your stomach and think, hey that is what my girlfriend was called.

This is only example of the emotion of pleasure, but the emotions of fear, and anger work just the same.
It is called: Operant conditioning

It is just how the brain works.

So I think there is no such thing as putting a conciesness into an immortal machine, because that would mean you have to transfer the brain into it, which will eventually die anyway.
The other way of transfering all available data that is in your brains, into an artificial mind, would just make a new machine that has learned the lessons you ever learnd in life and operate according to that experience, and probably won't know any better that he has lived that life.
But that is all theoretically.

Personally, I think when it ever comes to that point, I would never want to lose my identity in some kind of machine.
And if I, like IGNGN said had done everything I wanted in life, why would I feel the need to live on anyway.
Isn't it much more beautiful to believe in a better afterlife?

Pro wrote:Salute,

Well I think Lord'Hughsinkler is saying what you guys are all telling in a very filosofical way, only he is keeping it stupidly simple.

And I agree with that. I think you should not see mind and body as 2. It is just 1.

When you are getting old and have a lot of mementos, your body will make you feel things regarding to what you hear see and smell.
Like when you have fallen in love with a girl and gather all the mementos in your brain, and then when you are 80 years old, and you smell some kind of flower which you have ever given to that girlfriend, the body will give you that exact feeling you had when you were in love with your girfriend. And when you hear someone calling the same name, you still feel it in your stomach and think, hey that is what my girlfriend was called.

This is only example of the emotion of pleasure, but the emotions of fear, and anger work just the same.
It is called: Operant conditioning

It is just how the brain works.

So I think there is no such thing as putting a conciesness into an immortal machine, because that would mean you have to transfer the brain into it, which will eventually die anyway.
The other way of transfering all available data that is in your brains, into an artificial mind, would just make a new machine that has learned the lessons you ever learnd in life and operate according to that experience, and probably won't know any better that he has lived that life.
But that is all theoretically.

Personally, I think when it ever comes to that point, I would never want to lose my identity in some kind of machine.
And if I, like IGNGN said had done everything I wanted in life, why would I feel the need to live on anyway.
Isn't it much more beautiful to believe in a better afterlife?

+1

Lord'Hughsinkler wrote:

Pro wrote:Salute,

Well I think Lord'Hughsinkler is saying what you guys are all telling in a very filosofical way, only he is keeping it stupidly simple.

And I agree with that. I think you should not see mind and body as 2. It is just 1.

When you are getting old and have a lot of mementos, your body will make you feel things regarding to what you hear see and smell.
Like when you have fallen in love with a girl and gather all the mementos in your brain, and then when you are 80 years old, and you smell some kind of flower which you have ever given to that girlfriend, the body will give you that exact feeling you had when you were in love with your girfriend. And when you hear someone calling the same name, you still feel it in your stomach and think, hey that is what my girlfriend was called.

This is only example of the emotion of pleasure, but the emotions of fear, and anger work just the same.
It is called: Operant conditioning

It is just how the brain works.

So I think there is no such thing as putting a conciesness into an immortal machine, because that would mean you have to transfer the brain into it, which will eventually die anyway.
The other way of transfering all available data that is in your brains, into an artificial mind, would just make a new machine that has learned the lessons you ever learnd in life and operate according to that experience, and probably won't know any better that he has lived that life.
But that is all theoretically.

Personally, I think when it ever comes to that point, I would never want to lose my identity in some kind of machine.
And if I, like IGNGN said had done everything I wanted in life, why would I feel the need to live on anyway.
Isn't it much more beautiful to believe in a better afterlife?

+1

So your saying the memories of smell is stored in your nose?

or do you mean the memories of smell are in your mind, but becoz of the "settings" of the nose they became the memories they are, and if you would replace the nose with another nose on which the settings of that nose be different and thus the memory wont work?

Get back to me when you have written me a 2000+ word essay on how the mind works and then we will come back to this

Anyone else care to raise the next question?

ok i'll try...

the topic: Robotics in modern warfare

first off a definition: with robotics in modern warfare i mean autonomous systems that decide for themselves whether to shoot at a human or not. think "laptop armed with an M16".

some facts:
- the organization with the greatest interest in Artificial Intelligence is the american department of defense (DOD), they spend millions on AI research
- they organize different tournaments every year where autonomous systems have to fullfill different tasks, e.g. a car that has to travel a long distance through the desert; a small robot that has to find mines in a vast area; etc.
- the Iraq war started with zero, now there are around 12,000 of them
- a lot of politicians like the idea of robotic warfare since the less "your son/husband/brother/father fell on the battlefield" letters the families get, the more votes the politicians will get on the next election
- these autonomous systems are not able to clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians

here is an interesting article on that topic, quote:

The rounds from the automated gun rip into her and she collapses to the ground. By the time the robot has emptied its magazine, nine soldiers lie dead (including the woman officer).

Another 14 are seriously injured. The report will later blame the bloodbath on a 'software glitch'.

and this is not a scene from a movie...

debate!

The advantages of using robots to do our dirty work are many, mostly due to the fact that using them instead of people doesn't put anyone on our side at risk. However there are definitely drawbacks, which Flint touched on. A machine will never be able to make the split second calls that many soldiers have to make routinely when fighting a war in an area full of civilians. I think that robots should be used only as support to soldiers, not instead of soldiers - they should be used for carrying equipment, bomb disposal or clearing buildings via remote control from soldiers at a safe distance. Otherwise I think that we are taking a huge risk by giving a machine the ability to make a calculated choice between life and death.

The US DOD aims to have a third of all its forces robotic by 2015, I think it was.

yes, I do so agree, just in case it turns on the soldiers who deplyed it.

only robotics i want to warfare in would be mechas like gundam! Otherwise i rather have sticks and stones!

Lord~Saviour wrote:only robotics i want to warfare in would be mechas like gundam! Otherwise i rather have sticks and stones!

Whatever WW3 is fought with, it does not matter. WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones - Albert Einstein

don't we already fight with sticks and stones ?

bullet can be classed as the stone, sticks as in the weopon itself

Lord'Deathspeed wrote:don't we already fight with sticks and stones ?

bullet can be classed as the stone, sticks as in the weopon itself

Alright death, catch the stone

BOOM

whoops i thought you could catch stones

thats like playing catch with a granade

I prefer to use a incendiary grenade, its much more vibrant.

Guys... this is hardly thought provoking stuff.

lol and for those who wouldnt think at all but do what they read........ Do not try this at home!

Lord'Deathspeed wrote:

thats like playing catch with a granade

talk about jack *** move, only they would do thator play catch with a zombie with a granade

and no don't try this at home children unless you want to get something blown off

sorry I couldn't resist commenting to hughs comment

Right... back to some actual debate now perhaps?

to be or not to be?? .....that is the question




Why is it that when someone tells you that there’s billions of stars in the universe, you believe them. But if they tell you there’s wet paint somewhere you have to touch it?

Lord~Saviour wrote:Why is it that when someone tells you that there’s billions of stars in the universe, you believe them. But if they tell you there’s wet paint somewhere you have to touch it?

If you believe that you're an expert on something, then you're less likely to listen to what others have to say on a particular subject, and vice versa. So if an expert tells you something, you're more likely to believe it, but if a sign is put up saying 'Wet Paint', you believe you'd be able to tell that it was wet because you're smarter than a sign, so you'd touch the paint to prove it. But then you'd make an ass of yourself. This was a silly answer to an equally silly question, I believe.

better exmaple wet floor with a wet floor sign

now you cna see its wet thats why its shiny

I agree with Iggy's answer.

but... i somewhat believe that current society loves to prove theories wrong while being lazy. you see dumby's like ourselves probably couldnt prove the great scientist experts wrong about all the stars in the galaxies. plus when we look up at the stary night we see stacks of stars even though its a fraction of whats out there, so we think, "oh yeah, lots of stars, there must be billions! cant prove that geek wrong"
so proving someone wrong if the paint is wet is sooo much easier then proving a scientist wrong, so you just have to do it and being a lazy upstart and touch the wet paint; of course, as iggy said, you make a complete idoit & dilhole outta yourself... often in front of the ladies too.

If 4 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?

is that debiatable