Why not machines

Post Reply New Topic

You think pretty highly of machines, don't you?

Yes. They deserve to be thought highly of.



The way you post suggests two things to me:

1. You know almost nothing about probability and statistics, since you are confusing opinions you happen to hold strongly with real probabilities (i.e., the kind that are between 0 and 1)
2. You know almost nothing about the state of defense-backed research in this field as it stands today.

Good afternoon.

Actually its not an opinion. Its a simple mathematical concept that can be applied to the word CHANGE. Over an infinite timeline, only something that remains absolutely Consistent, and therefore PURE(something that changes does neither), can maintain itself.

Let me put it another way, that lets you understand it more thoroughly.

Flip a coin. You can continuously flip it hoping for heads. While I can pick any single number of flips I want and therefore state that its POSSIBLE to have heads on them all, using mathematics more related to calculus(continuous series, vs fixed seires) can prove a different result, while essentially stating the same thing.

So in other words:

- each flip is 1/2
- each flip from the initial guess will multiply by itself. for example you have a 1/4 chance to get heads, and then heads again. 1/4 to get T - H, 1/4 to get H - T, 1/4 to get T - T.

- If you produce a multiple of infinity, the answer drops to zero. This is not opinion, it is mathematically accurate.

While I could state that if I flipped something 3billion times...I would have an extraordinarily small chance of getting heads EVERYTIME. Over an infinite timeframe, the mathematical, and therefore realistic result of looking back on an already infinite timeframe(assuming you somehow acquired omniscience of all time), it drops to zero.

Robots existence, like everything else, drops to zero. This is because their is always a possibility for disaster than ends their existence. As a result robot existence can never equate to 1 divided by 1 (1/1)...it must always be less than 100%. Therefore, over infinite time, their existence drops to nothing. In other words, they will die like everything else, sometime down the road. Just like humans.

As for military advancement...there are also extraordinary robotic advancements OUTSIDE of military...and also in biology and possible eugenics.





Reread, what was said in that bigger paragraph. It said the likelihood is that humans and robots merge.

In other words it says. Humans eventually BECOME the aspired robots, as they grow more and more like them Through first eugenics, and then cybernetic implants to overcome what biology cannot.

I saw your theory to be quite plausible. I think it will be made to be socially acceptable through advances in medical technology, but the potential for growth beyond the medical realm is unavoidable. The possibilities are mind blowing. They are already doing it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/science/29brain.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin

But what about the monkey? Did the researchers just kill him afterwards?

Why would they spend the money to implant a cybernetic chip into his brain and then kill him afterward?

*bzzt* The binomial distribution is discrete. More importantly, it's also of very limited relevance here. See, I knew you didn't know what you were talking about.



Yes, but the way things are going now, what with the nation's best universities doing free research for the DARPA Grand Challenge every year and everything, suggests that the first general AIs will be military applications. And unless humans somehow become receptive to eugenics on the whole (what suggests that to you?), they will probably outstrip us completely, take everything we have, and leave nice little piles of unburied dead everywhere.

Good evening.

I was expressing my concern for the monkey's well-being. Has this cybernetic implant harmed him in any way? I hope not.

I don't know. I have no way of knowing if the monkey is harmed. It's obvious from the video the monkey has two arms, so it's not as if he was amputee and this little experiment is helping him any, but human amputees of the future will be.

Did they cut his brain open to install the chip? I just wonder how invasive the implantation actually was.

@Chever,
Do you know if the military is watching or backing any of this? The article does not mention where the technology or experiments are coming from. Of course, the only mention of military is 'helping injured soldiers'. Like I said...It makes the subject more palatable when you say, 'think of the people with spinal injuries', but I can see how the military would be interested in mind controled robotics, or maybe the ones producing it in the first place.

I would imagine any type of brain implant could be considered pretty invasive.

The brain is not something you can just take apart and then put back together. I wonder if the implantation surgery itself was not done by a robot and overseen by a computer.

It says, 'just beneath the skull'. I do not get the impression it is really 'implanted' into the brain or there was any dissection done. Maybe just a tiny pinhole drilled. I see if I can find another article.

From a pragmatic standpoint, that would be a tremendous waste of resources considering that the surgery just penetrated the skull.

This one speaks more of the history of the technology and where the tests are being conducted.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4272246.html

Seems we are in a race with Japan. This one covers the implant surgery a bit.
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/04/japan-cyborg-research-enters-the-skull/