God has a new competitor, DARPA

[Snowman]

It seems our favorite government think tank is wanting to get into creating thier own intelligent life forms.

DARPA seeking Genesis-style godware capability (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/23/darpa_physical_intelligence/)

[Shea]

Skynet? :)

[Snowman]

More like a bunch of zombie humanoids whose sole purpose would be to do as they were told by controllers.

You know… Republicans

[rforsythe]

More like a bunch of zombie humanoids whose sole purpose would be to do as they were told by controllers.

You know… Republicans

I thought we already had the ability to make those though.

[Shea]

More like a bunch of zombie humanoids whose sole purpose would be to do as they were told by controllers.

You know… Politicians

Fixed

[Snowman]

I thought we already had the ability to make those though.The unforeseen problem with their master plan was that you can only bury your followers up to their noses in bullshit before they begin to notice.

[Devaclis]

There are already metals being made that can transform themselves into different things when an electrical current is run through them. The currents can be varied for the metals to form many different objects. There are also polymers that can be programmed to form different shapes based on temperature and moisture.

This technology is sought out by the government AND private sector as a way to have parts on hand that initially take up little space but can be made to fill critical roles in an instant. Take a pool of liquid metal and shape it into a brake rotor, propeller, gear, axle, whatever you need, just by applying an outside energy force to it. That could come in pretty damned handy in a war zone or on a construction site.

All of you "Trek" fans should be rejoicing as we are pretty damned close to make an actual "replicator". This would also be helpful when used in conjunction with stem cells to replicate and replace broken bones, organs, or entire body parts.

The singularity is pretty close. You should read more than extremist propaganda for an outline of your future.

[Snowman]

Sounds more like they are inventing...

http://www.destinationhollywood.com/movies/terminator/images/terminator2_19.jpg

But, I doubt they would be Republicans…

[longrider]

All of you "Trek" fans should be rejoicing as we are pretty damned close to make an actual "replicator". This would also be helpful when used in conjunction with stem cells to replicate and replace broken bones, organs, or entire body parts.


I am a Trek fan and while I would really like a real 'replicator', what they are describing sounds closer to the Replicators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Stargate)) from Stargate :(

[Devaclis]

You have to start transforming materials before you can make them into completely different elements, right? Nano technology along with bio engineering will make some scary things possible, but also make some amazing things real. When we get to the point of being able to manipulate our environment in a nano scale we can eradicate viruses, replace body parts, transplant memories into hardware, you name it. There is no end to what we can do, only what we feel it is RIGHT to do.

Sice the beginning of humanity people have wanted to live forever. Now, in our technological age, we are close to making that happen. We just have to choose what it means to "live". Being replicated into a computer, is that "living"? Having your memories placed into a younger donor body, is that "living"? Being frozen every few years and then thawed out to experience a new millennium or decade, or relatives birth, is that "living"?

Remember, we have not mastered ANY of our scientfic breakthroughs along WITH it's moral and societal implications. What will we do once we discover how manipulate the very atomic bonds that hold our universe together, on a level that is as easy as it is for us to shape electricity into email today? Lots to think about.

[rforsythe]

Sice the beginning of humanity people have wanted to live forever. Now, in our technological age, we are close to making that happen. We just have to choose what it means to "live". Being replicated into a computer, is that "living"? Having your memories placed into a younger donor body, is that "living"? Being frozen every few years and then thawed out to experience a new millennium or decade, or relatives birth, is that "living"?

Interesting debate. To add to this... What if you could stop the aging process in its current state, and exist as you are now. You could still be killed by illness, accident, or intent, but you would not die of old age. (Of course with this comes being able to cure most illnesses, and recover from all but the worst trauma.) Now the entire point to human procreation comes into question, because propagation of the species no longer relies strictly on birth of new children to maintain a population level. What moral dilemmas then arise when the population density exceeds critical mass (something some think we are close to now) and will not decrease from natural means? At what point does the population as a whole begin to kill parts of itself off to ensure survival of the rest? If you know this is coming, how do you (a) decide who gets this magical ability or (b) decide who must die? What happens if we all genetically mutate and can no longer age and (a) is made for us? Chew on that for a while...

[Devaclis]

Once issue with stopping the aging process in organisms is the problem with what to do with damaged/dead/dying cells. Our body in part of the aging process recycles and disposes of our own cells once they are of no use. If we no longer aged, this process would stop. A paper cut would be permanent, your blood would no longer clot, your hair would not grow. Interesting hurdles to overcome for sure.

I think that longevity short of immortality will be based on our technological ability to transplant our "self" into another body or machine or organism to escape the genetically based aging process of our current, evolved bodies. After all, evolution gave us opposable thumbs, intellect, a central nervous system. It also relieved us of our tails, full body hair, small cranial capacity. Aging is also a part of our evolution. It works, that is why it succeeded. Bio engineering MAY be able to stop it but we will have to see if it is for the betterment of humans or not. Again, moral dilemmas may be harder to solve than the technological problems we have now.

[Snowman]

The immortality debate depends on what form it takes.

To simply fix a human body so it no longer ages does bring up the question of over population. A couple things do come to mind.

First, the trend in societies seems to be the more educated the population the fewer children they produce. To become immortal I think would require a higher level of education thus the need to have more then 2 children would be less of a desire. You’re already going to live forever why would you need to have several children to carry on your name.

Of course, there will be exceptions to this and some will see it as a sport to see how many children they can produce.

[Devaclis]

Soilent green.

[TurboGizzmo]

Soilent green.

Mmmm people....I just had lunch :)

Skynet makes logical decisions, i am all for it! :)

[McVaaahhh]

<snip> ...evolution relieved us of our tails, full body hair, small cranial capacity.

Well, most of us. Haven't you met Chris before? :D

[rforsythe]

Once issue with stopping the aging process in organisms is the problem with what to do with damaged/dead/dying cells. Our body in part of the aging process recycles and disposes of our own cells once they are of no use. If we no longer aged, this process would stop. A paper cut would be permanent, your blood would no longer clot, your hair would not grow. Interesting hurdles to overcome for sure.

Not sure I agree with you. If you can still be injured or ill, your body will need a way to "heal". I'm just saying what if natural aging didn't happen, or perhaps slowed to a rate where cells could regenerate in step. You'd still have a spleen to recycle old blood, you'd still produce platelets to clot, your hair would grow. Unless you are Rybo, then you have no spleen, and no hair. Pretty sure his blood does clot though.


I think that longevity short of immortality will be based on our technological ability to transplant our "self" into another body or machine or organism to escape the genetically based aging process of our current, evolved bodies. After all, evolution gave us opposable thumbs, intellect, a central nervous system. It also relieved us of our tails, full body hair, small cranial capacity. Aging is also a part of our evolution. It works, that is why it succeeded. Bio engineering MAY be able to stop it but we will have to see if it is for the betterment of humans or not. Again, moral dilemmas may be harder to solve than the technological problems we have now.

I didn't say it'd be better for humans (or humanity) - rather I think quite the opposite. I agree it's a necessary thing. But what if someone or some thing stopped it. When technology outpaces morals and ethics, we run into big problems.

[Snowman]

I didn't say it'd be better for humans (or humanity) - rather I think quite the opposite. I agree it's a necessary thing. But what if someone or some thing stopped it. When technology outpaces morals and ethics, we run into big problems.It seems every time a new technology has been created a new set of morals to match, follow.

It wasn’t so long ago that the idea of tracking where a person goes every minute of everyday was considered evil. Yet everyone with a cell phone in their pocket has this going on and it doesn’t seem to be an issue.

The moral values that we have today will not exist in a world where you can down load your brain into a computer. And the moral values of living in a virtual reality will be different, even between the several realities I’m sure they will have.

Humanity has had different moral values between locations, cultures and has changed over time. It has never been static.

[Devaclis]

Nearly 20 years ago, in the documentaryThe Day After Trinity, Freeman Dyson summarized the scientific attitudes that brought us to the nuclear precipice:
"I have felt it myself. The glitter of nuclear weapons. It is irresistible if you come to them as a scientist. To feel it's there in your hands, to release this energy that fuels the stars, to let it do your bidding. To perform these miracles, to lift a million tons of rock into the sky. It is something that gives people an illusion of illimitable power, and it is, in some ways, responsible for all our troubles - this, what you might call technical arrogance, that overcomes people when they see what they can do with their minds."



(http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=8&topic=&topic_set=#8)
Now, as then, we are creators of new technologies and stars of the imagined future, driven - this time by great financial rewards and global competition - despite the clear dangers, hardly evaluating what it may be like to try to live in a world that is the realistic outcome of what we are creating and imagining.


Taken from a really good article written by an extremely intelligent and thoughtful man:


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html


I posted this last week, I think. Good read. It is not a lecture or a paper on what can happen. It is more of a bunch of sources put together in the authors writings to get you thinking.

[Shea]

Aging is due more to the accumulated replication errors and the associated damage to the DNA then anything else. Stopping aging does not necessarily mean ceasing cell replication. If we somehow modified our DNA to more easily repair itself (like for instance Halobacterium NRC-1) our lifespans would be greatly increased. Add to that an army of nano machines set to patrol our systems and aggressively purge any disease/infections, heal injuries and make repairs and immortality would be reached.

Population pressure would give rise to mega cities/arcologies, then orbital housing and finally off world colonies. With the biological and nano-engineering knowledge to grant immortality terraforming planets/exoplanetary construction would be a simple thing (relatively speaking).

[Snowman]

Population pressure would give rise to mega cities/arcologies, then orbital housing and finally off world colonies. With the biological and nano-engineering knowledge to grant immortality terraforming planets/exoplanetary construction would be a simple thing (relatively speaking).I doubt the idea of very many off world colonies. I do think they will exist at some point however; the amount of energy, materials, supplies and waste to deal with, needed to support a biological human body living in these environments would not make them feasible.

Also people have the tendency to get board and living in confined spaces will not be a very attractive living arrangement. This is one of the major issues we have with our stations in Antarctica. We get very few people willing to exist out there for extended periods of time.

One thing that has helped is video games. People will spend days playing these games because it allows them to be elsewhere. This is where I am getting the idea that humans will not object to moving their brains into machines.

Why live in a small confined off world colony using up vast amount of resources to keep your biological body alive when you could exist in computer-generated world that is only limited by imagination who only resource would be electrical power and software upgrades?

[Shea]

Given the choice between living on a terraformed Mars and three centimeters from 100 of my closest friends, I'll take the former.

We're also talking about a level of scientific innovation that allows for human immortality. At that point a great many things are possible. Bio-engineered organisms that breakdown human waste into X, self replicating nano-builders (fire off a single rocket to a destination of your choice with 3lbs of the little buggers and in two years you have a pre-built city awaiting your colonists), compact energy sources, massive computing power for all sorts of entertainment, etc.

There's a new Bruce Willis movie coming out called Surrogates with something similar to what you are talking about. Life through telecommuting.

[Devaclis]

Autobots

[Shea]

I might be interested in implanting my brain in Bumblebee...

[Devaclis]

You would be better as speed buggy :)

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/speed_buggy.jpg

[Shea]

I hate you...






:)

[Snowman]

Given the choice between living on a terraformed Mars and three centimeters from 100 of my closest friends, I'll take the former.

We're also talking about a level of scientific innovation that allows for human immortality. At that point a great many things are possible. Bio-engineered organisms that breakdown human waste into X, self replicating nano-builders (fire off a single rocket to a destination of your choice with 3lbs of the little buggers and in two years you have a pre-built city awaiting your colonists), compact energy sources, massive computing power for all sorts of entertainment, etc.

There's a new Bruce Willis movie coming out called Surrogates with something similar to what you are talking about. Life through telecommuting.
That movie is close. However, the surrogates depicted in that movie are real machines living in the real world. It’s the humans (in their human form) living in chairs that control these machines.

The vision I see would do away with the biological form altogether. The power requirements to run a human brain are small and transportable. Why for instance terraform another planet when you can just download yourself into a robot body that can withstand the radiation and lack of air and just take a walk out onto the Martian surface.

I think its the height of arrogance that humans must have places adapt to their requirements, when it would be much easier just to adapt to theirs.

[Shea]

No I see what your saying, and only the future will have the final say on which happens. It will probably depend on which technology matures first.

From a philosophical standpoint, as Dana alluded to initially, how do I define what it means to be human? Does it really matter if I am "human"? Can I merge with a machine, or fundamentally change my DNA to the point where I can withstand 18,000 grays of radiation and breath CO2 and still be human? Fun questions :)

[rforsythe]

And of course we come back to the thread from a couple weeks ago about the singularity. So what happens when this thing we engineer, begins to re-engineer what it is. As a self-aware being, it determines that it is technologically and biologically superior to us, and figures out how to replicate itself (or better yet, evolve). Humans no longer occupy the top of the evolutionary food chain on the planet, and assuming this isn't realized early on, become more of a hindrance to this new creation than anything else. We are then regarded as, best case, a viral entity. At worst we become a danger to their resources, or food for them. It would be a long shot to think humans would be regarded as peers (regardless of status as its creator), and never as superior. By creating something living which is orders of magnitude higher than ourselves in terms of capability and quality, we in essence doom ourselves to planned obsolescence, and either extermination or culling into allowed existence at a much lesser extent.

What if the monkeys, thousands of years ago, somehow smashed together some genes and created humans. Humans ultimately reigned as a result, and monkeys ended up being what they are now. Humans smash together some genes and make something else genetically related but quite superior, and become the monkeys of tomorrow. (This isn't based on anything, just a random tangent thrown in...)

Control only works when you can think ahead of what you seek to control. When that role is reversed, you are quickly outmatched.

[Shea]

It would depend on if, if it was a biological organism, it required the same resources as we do. Then I could certainly see your scenario being played out, especially if it could rapidly duplicate itself. However, if it were a machine intelligence I could very well see it viewing us, not as a threat, but rather quaint organisms and not really worth it's time as it pursued it's own intellectual interests.

[rforsythe]

If it's a biological organism created by us, to exist in this environment, then it is almost a certainty that at some level it will require the same resources at some point. We would create something that could fuel itself from the things available to it (water, sunlight, other biological organisms), and since we are talking about a chemically-created instance of "life", it will likely need most or all of those things.

[Shea]

So we're talking a fully sentient being that was "manufactured" for some unknown purpose? Who is, for arguments sake, faster, stronger, smarter and better looking then all of us...well Dana at least?

[rforsythe]

So we're talking a fully sentient being that was "manufactured" for some unknown purpose? Who is, for arguments sake, faster, stronger, smarter and better looking then all of us...well Dana at least?

More or less. And not for an unknown purpose; DARPA wants this thing for military use. So we're basically trying to create something that is faster, stronger, smarter, and better looking than Dana, and teaching it how to kill.

What could possibly go wrong here.....

[derekm]

Sounds more like they are inventing...

http://www.destinationhollywood.com/movies/terminator/images/terminator2_19.jpg

But, I doubt they would be Republicans…


it will most likely look like this!
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s229/longjohnjohn05/arnold1.jpg