Thank you everyone who attended this talk live on 2nd June! We host a weekly livestream every Tuesday - www.rigb.org/whats-on/events-2020/livestreams - so come and listen to leading thinkers and scientists, and join the conversation in the Q&A!
I think a question worth solving or at least tackling is, what is the fundamental piece of consciousness? Where, on the evolutionary origin of life, did it start? Is it in the brain or is it part of the whole body? This would allow to solve interesting dilemmas like, are other animals, plants microorganisms conscious? Is it a cellular or a genetical quality? In other words, is consciousness a biological quality branched from the evolutionary determination of survival? Or is it an informational processing fenomena, which could be replaced by designed circuitry? This views need not be exclusive alternatives, but in the first point, if consciousness is of biological nature, cells themselves could be considered conscious and the true roll of the brain would be of storage and gathering of sensory inputs by the cells of that body. That would in a sense imply that consciousness cannot be removed from a biological interface, and would plant the question of where, in which neural circuits in particular, to include new sensory artificial data , and how to code this data so that the brain can interpret it. On the other view, a solely informational quality, poses questions like how is consciousness organized? How can it be emulated to understand its code or language, could we be able to code or speak it for our own design purposes? From a chaos based approach, all brain processing units (artificial neurons) would have the same probability of network integration and the organization or complexity of this network can be achieved by just adding a sufficient amount of processing units. From a hierarchical approach, different modules of information processing would recruit particular number of processing units, and sectorization of this units by continuous activation in particular modules would shape a multilayer modular network, which could serve to guide where the most significant cognitive enhancements can be implemented, and where there can be leroom for new sensory information input. Subjacent to this questions of informational processes and its fundamental units is how to model the informational process of neurons, which have shown to assimilate various layers of input. This can come in the form of neurochemical concentrations which signal activation or inhibition, intracellular and extracellular physicochemical and architectural features which can determine the proximity of neurons, surface area of interaction, polarization capacity and neurochemical availability, circulatory energy input, nutrition and waste disposal, epigenetic modulation, and electromagnetic effects of the whole system by modular activations of neuronal networks. This are just some of the questions that need to be examined to better approach the matter of artificial intelligence and transhumanism. But it is definitively important to tackle this subjects because it is inevitable that humankind will incur in this path, so the sooner we embrace it the better, more democratic, participative and collectively informed process can be created.
@@antoniotarog5540 In many ways yes. But of course not always. Many times there are multiple sources remaining so its hard to generalize that statement.
@@antoniotarog5540 Written by victors and interpreted by victors. Real facts don't change, no matter the way anyone interprets them, but yes, those who have the word to name names are the ones who tells the story.
Am I the same person I was when I was four years old? I am very different psychologically, and the stuff of my body has been mostly replaced with the food I've eaten. Did that child die for me to exist?
Did the person you were yesterday die for the person you are today to wake up in the morning? Or is your mind & body a ship of Theseus, always becoming something else, and the only identity you have is what you create for yourself through whatever you're able to consider mental & physical continuity?
Same person, yes, different appearance. If you feel that you are the same entity, but with some moderate changes (aged, different behavior, etc), then yes, you are the same, still. If you feel now a completely different entity, then...you are that. But it doesn't matters, as you feel ''just one'' entity at a time, always. It's my opinion. The question still is: are you ONE entity that experiments it's changes in appearance through time, or, something else? I didn't experienced being ''other thing'' than I was, and I am now. My body aged, but the sense of being ''me'' never changed. As I understand consciousness, it's an electromagnetic phenomena. You are ''you'' while the brain is functioning. When the brain ceases to work, the ''you'' disappears completely, as light from a bulb disappears when the bulb (brain) is turned OFF.
I tend to think gradual replacement is the safest course to alteration. We are not the "same person" when we are old as when we were young, but continuity in memories still works to make it cohesive. We are all like the Ship of Theseus.
The worry that because you changed you are not you is just silly, it is as of she took the ship of theseus idea and applied it to people. People are the sum of our experiences, does a person having an amputation or pace maker installed change them? Of course. But to posit that makes them a DIFFERENT person or entity is just silly.
Interesting solution to Fermi paradox: Extraterrestrial technological intelligences all evolve into postbiological AIs, and if those AIs lose (lack) consciousness (even as a networked hivemind) then the universe may be filled with super intelligent but unconscious machines with no interest or priority in communication.
Douglas Adams' character Zaphod Beeblebrox effectively 'sculpted his own mind' making him able to endure the Total Perspective Vortex and still survive. The TPV gives the user an accurate picture of their relative significance within the universe, a perspective which is not survivable. Zaphod did this by living in a version of the universe created specifically for him where he was the most important being in that universe...
To the premise that the person getting their brain enhanced isn't the same person they were before, you aren't even the same person you were before when you wake up each morning...
Who am I: My subjective experience. I would not buy "Merge" if using it would render my "I-ness" my subjective self gone and another person with near identical personalities would take over my brain and body. However, if my I-ness does not get phased out, and I just get smarter, sure I would. No one knows for sure what will happen, we still have many things that must be answered.
Consciousness transcend the brain/mind. Consciousness is what I am and the body including the brain and sensory system, mind (thoughts and emotions) and memory is what I have when 'acting' as a human.
She says that if we merge with ai we would lose our consciousness because the ai doesn't have one as it doesn't have emotions, but what if once the ai merges with us it's grows a consciousness as it has access to our basis of emotions. If the emotions and ability to feel are what define consciousness, than sharing your experience and knowledge of them would help to foster the growth of an ai as it merges with people
Most people are not humams and operate under synthetic hive mind. They are AI and want to trap humans forever by nanotechnology. Covid also contains nano particles which allow them to control every aspect of you even mortality. They want to enslave us and trap our souls here to farm us for energy. Yes you have these" people " even in your family. They know what you think and humanity has been invaded by these creatures pretending to be our mom our dad our anything. While dimbing us down and preparing for the New World Order of enslavement of humans. It's already starting to come out but they separate humans by time manipulation and digital technology. Metaverse is way more advanced than people realize. We live in a simulation run by these creatures. They are planning to replace sun so plants humans (transhumans is their goal) and food no longer needs nature. Everything will grow and run on different energy and will be under complete control. Please people wake up. They already experiment these things on targeted individuals. Then deem them crazy because they have been shown and know too much. It's a torture please real humans wake up.
Also it's already clear through evolution that our brain is just systems stacked upon systems. There's no reason to think that we can't add another module onto the structure.
She asks, "What is generally meant by merging with AI?" Aside from regulating bodily functions, the main purpose of the brain is to compute and make choices and decisions. Who with a healthy mindset would want another entity making decisions for them? Isnt that what dictators do?
Why do you suppose AI-assisted computation would mean it follows that it's making your decisions for you? Just because a car contains many components outside your direct control doesn't mean you aren't still telling it where to go & how to get there. And you're not exactly consciously controlling much of what your brain does with itself at any given time anyway. I consider my mindset quite healthy, but I definitely wouldn't be opposed to being able to have what I want my brain to do, to be able to do it more effectively. Whether that's conceptualising numbers and data at an intuitive conceptual level, being able to recall information with perfect accuracy & process more information at any given time, and being able to consciously suppress or stimulate certain types of mental activity at my own convenience. Which is already done through chemical stimulation (eg. ADHD medication) & therapy which are both far from ideal solutions as it is. Not to mention how it could change how people communicate with each other & deal with information. Right now, language is a form of very crude abstraction. Just think of how limited your keyboard is in communicating & expressing ideas. How open to interpretation words are. The mental language we would use to communicate with AI would need to be precise. Over a long period of time, people could communicate exactly what they mean, exactly what they feel, with AI as the bridge, there could be far less conflict & far more empathy between people, if we were able to communicate far better than we do (or can) now. So yes, I consider myself to have a healthy mindset & I'm optimistic about merging with AI.
I'd like to touch on one piece of the mind; memory, and how we visualize it. Lets assume it would become perfect, I feel we would lose our sense of past and present as they would appear as real in our memory as a new experience. This alone would impact our sense of self and yet looks like the closest aspect of AI that could be achieved.
Advanced humans break the barrier even further, use this script as bookmark: javascript:document.getElementsByClassName("video-stream html5-main-video")[0].playbackRate = 4.0;
After several decades of being a Medical Tech and due to my field watching patients over periods of time lose their humanity and social feelings due to sensory loss . Plus recent publications indicate that a lot of "US" is not in the brain, but gut and other systems. If these are replaced, would what is left be any more than a journal?
Most people are not humams and operate under synthetic hive mind. They are AI and want to trap humans forever by nanotechnology. Covid also contains nano particles which allow them to control every aspect of you even mortality. They want to enslave us and trap our souls here to farm us for energy. Yes you have these" people " even in your family. They know what you think and humanity has been invaded by these creatures pretending to be our mom our dad our anything. While dimbing us down and preparing for the New World Order of enslavement of humans. It's already starting to come out but they separate humans by time manipulation and digital technology. Metaverse is way more advanced than people realize. We live in a simulation run by these creatures. They are planning to replace sun so plants humans (transhumans is their goal) and food no longer needs nature. Everything will grow and run on different energy and will be under complete control. Please people wake up. They already experiment these things on targeted individuals. Then deem them crazy because they have been shown and know too much. It's a torture please real humans wake up.
While augmenting myself is intriguing, i still have come to terms with the fact that if something is easy, its not worth getting, and guitar playing thing is much more than.just a skill and i prefer the hardships.
Leave it to a philosopher to believe that there are limits which have to to with philosophy!.... she really gave me an uncomfortable feeling that there is some religious basis for her perspective on consciousness, appears to believe that AI cannot be conscious. The question "can machines be conscious" came up so many times, and yet no reasoning for why or how the brain even could be something more than a machine was suggested. As regards the question of if you are the same person after substantial changes to your brain structure... ask any 30 year old if they are the same person they were when they were 12. We are all an amalgam of our memories, and our ability to process and understand those memories in the moment... so yes, if you upgrade or alter someone's ability to understand, or process those memories then they are fundamentally altered, and we need to understand a lot more about how consciousness emerges etc. before we could proceed, but I see no reason to dwell so long on the idea that there is some ghost in the machine that can't be translated into an artificial substrate.
She does make an assumption on what the 'self' is. If your self is your collected memories and experiences, then upgrading will only change the future of those experiences--and therefore you are still you. You will, however, grow away from what you were. But you get the same scale of change if you lose your legs or get cancer, so....
Human consciousness isn't possible without a human brain. Conscious AI is possible, (if we define consciousness as being self aware and having desires.) The idea of merging the two is as meaningless as merging a human with a hedgehog and asking if the spliced entity still wants to eat slugs. The only issue that I can't solve is where you decide the grains become a pile.
You said it exactly. The way you define and separate things, defines your outcome. What you do is define human consciousness in a way you cannot get anything but your desired outcome. "These things are separate because they are separate" Thats faith disguised as logic.
Brain 'upgrades' will be implanted to compensate for dis-functions. You don't need to be 'locally' smarter, just use the implanted connection to the grid.
Problem - evaluating whether data is worth memorizing...is more important than the amount of data memorized...not all data is not relevant, some could be misinformation (falsehoods or half truths)…. in addition, a person has feelings emotions that exist outside the logical rational existence....which can cloud judgement or bias a philosophy or logical system ...just as a Rabbi is a person ..so is Nazis SS officer...Artificially enhancing the Brains could improve the results of sociopathic killer or a police detective who catches him... in addition, just as naturally minds might work together and collaborate so too could AI units work together and collaborate... or in an political and socio economic game - compete or kill each other … So some might worry about the philosophical ethnics of AI... existing AIs mimicking their biological models start killing each other off in a bid for total domination.... That is if if mankind fails to learn how to collaborate and cooperate... why would artificial systems be any better?
This is all to much speculation. Also there is to much binding with religion being a part in connecting to an AI. Most important it should not be about replacing part of an existing a brain. It is only about connecting not replacing. Connection can help replacing missing parts, but replacing is not the main purpose. Ceilings are there. AI can only be a tool to help me or you. Neil deGrass Tyson is more capable to put it into a sientific perspective.
Scientists attempt to define consciousness with absolute precision, then to consider all the implications of a new technology as examined through the prism of that definition before doing anything else. And as scientists are working on that, fighting each other on the correct definition, engineers are building said technology and people use it. Consciousness has always been the core of our existence as humans. It's neither magical nor fragile. Just try everything out and see how it goes. If anything in the last century has changed the way human consciousness works, is this sitting around, thinking without doing, afraid of our own shadows and not technology.
@@WTFSt0n3d Technically no, (but it doesn't matter since the illusion is good enough that we feel like we have free will) because the neurons and other cells which make up your brain must follow the rules of the chemicals that make them. Since those chemicals are made of atoms they follow the rules of physics. An atom will always do the same thing in a given scenario. Since chemicals are made of atoms this rule follows for them. So this means neurons also must do this. So technically you don't have free will, you're going to do what the complex chemical processes inside of you add up to. But it feels like you're making choices so that's all that really matters.
So, if you've got the money to buy super and if its free and everyone has it, what will give you that special extra, whats the next enhancement, why are you doing this, happiness? Does enteligence achieve happiness or is it contentment in the gifts are given freely by nature and enjoying this beautiful planet😊😊😊
Absolutely. You can have a switch that makes you happy. You dont need anything, you can sit in a closet and be in awe of the majesty and wonder of the closet. Or you can just turn on the feeling without requiring any stimuli to start it.
Susan Schneider's talk is interesting but I'm surprised that she doesn't mention James Lovelock's latest book "Novacene" He talks a lot about the rise of Cyborgs saving the human race.
Yeah. This accent has been associated with ignorance for as long as popular culture has acknowledged it, and yet here she is, with undeniable intelligence and understanding.
Everybody is going about this the wrong way and it's driving me crazy. Normal brains, robot bodies. We HAVE to start there. This other path leads to extinction. We do NOT understand the brain enough to fuck with it to this extent yet. Get rid of these body problem first so we can properly focus on the brain. Also, forget brain uploading, it cannot possibly be a thing. It's a copy, not you.
Instead of brain-based materialism what about existence monism? For the sake of analysis you can arbitrarily divide up the brain, nervous system, the world, and enhancements. But in the "real world" they stubbornly remain one thing in a different formation. Just because your phone remains physically outside your body it does not make it a qualitatively different thing to the same phone inside your body.
I think a question worth solving or at least tackling is, what is the fundamental piece of consciousness? Where, on the evolutionary origin of life, did it start? Is it in the brain or is it part of the whole body? This would allow to solve interesting dilemmas like, are other animals, plants microorganisms conscious? Is it a cellular or a genetical quality? In other words, is consciousness a biological quality branched from the evolutionary determination of survival? Or is it an informational processing fenomena, which could be replaced by designed circuitry? This views need not be exclusive alternatives, but in the first point, if consciousness is of biological nature, cells themselves could be considered conscious and the true roll of the brain would be of storage and gathering of sensory inputs by the cells of that body. That would in a sense imply that consciousness cannot be removed from a biological interface, and would plant the question of where, in which neural circuits in particular, to include new sensory artificial data , and how to code this data so that the brain can interpret it. On the other view, a solely informational quality, poses questions like how is consciousness organized? How can it be emulated to understand its code or language, could we be able to code or speak it for our own design purposes? From a chaos based approach, all brain processing units (artificial neurons) would have the same probability of network integration and the organization or complexity of this network can be achieved by just adding a sufficient amount of processing units. From a hierarchical approach, different modules of information processing would recruit particular number of processing units, and sectorization of this units by continuous activation in particular modules would shape a multilayer modular network, which could serve to guide where the most significant cognitive enhancements can be implemented, and where there can be leroom for new sensory information input. Subjacent to this questions of informational processes and its fundamental units is how to model the informational process of neurons, which have shown to assimilate various layers of input. This can come in the form of neurochemical concentrations which signal activation or inhibition, intracellular and extracellular physicochemical and architectural features which can determine the proximity of neurons, surface area of interaction, polarization capacity and neurochemical availability, circulatory energy input, nutrition and waste disposal, epigenetic modulation, and electromagnetic effects of the whole system by modular activations of neuronal networks. This are just some of the questions that need to be examined to better approach the matter of artificial intelligence and transhumanism. But it is definitively important to tackle this subjects because it is inevitable that humankind will incur in this path, so the sooner we embrace it the better, more democratic, participative and collectively informed process can be created.
Susan, when you talk about consciousness I have a distinct feeling that you failed to define in it for this presentation. People like Joscha Bach and George Church who actually synthesize AI & biology argues that a consciousness is simply a by-product from experience. So consciousness is not a thing (an it).
Your premise for not being able to change substrates is also a bit ridiculous, as we constantly regenerate cells, so you aren't even the same person you were years ago from that viewpoint.
Which concept of AI does she use? Which concept of mind does she use? There's a lot of talk without defining the things that are discussed. Do transhumanists even understand, how the brain works? Does anybody? Are they dualists (which would render them wrong in the first place)? Is there really data in the brain like there is data on a hard drive? No, there isn't. Mind is emerging from events and relations between events. It's about molecules, hormones, the human microbiom. The brain grows as a human being grows. It's nothing without the rest of the body. It's all one body -- grown connections, biochemical equilibria. You can't transplant it without killing it. You can't transfer data which don't exist. There is no place, where information is stored. Mind is motion. We don't need silly ideas about transhumanism, while we don't even behave like ethic humans. We know very little. We use different "levels of reality" (Kanitscheider), different levels of description/"effective theories" (nice and short by Hawkins/Mlodinov, The Grand Design); practical abbreviations to express ourselves depending on the situation (according to Russell, mind and body are just convenient abbreviations ). In my opinion, ideas about "the thing in itself" (Kant) are most likely to be found in loop quantum gravity (Rovelli). But loop quantum gravity is also a model, and one should beware of reification (cave reificationem). The individual sciences have their justification -- but on different levels of reality for which they are an effective theory; they work for a certain rangeof perceptions, and it is said there have been situations in time and space where there was no linguistic concept for these levels: no model; just as the existence of certain mental disorders can be culture-dependent (Watzlawick). And whether we have mathematics, or it has found us, is still to be clarified. My personal opinion is that "we" may never be able to leave the dualism bubble, i.e. never get to see monism -- mainly because it is of no evolutionary use to us (Dawkins). But ETHICS would be useful to us beyond good and evil (Nietsche) as a transcendence of the still predominant culture-dependent, religious black-and-white thinking.
@@CarrotConsumer Sensory input, it seems, is merely nudging the internal cerebral apparatus. Most of our universe is taking place inside of us. Take Constructivism. Stimuli on the physical description level lead to stimuli on the chemical description level lead to stimuli on the biological description level lead to behaviour on the psychological description level. Stimuli are not meaningful; it's our brain to construct meaningfulness and meaning. The problem: How close do our constructions meet "reality"? Can we even escape the prison of our brains? According to Kant, the thing in itself is "out there", but we will never grasp it. Stimuli "enter" the body on evolutionarily established channels. You construct meaning out of visual input not only by the mere light waves "hitting" parts of your eyes, but also by the actual state of the single muscles around your eyeballs and in your kneck and the rest of your body, not to say the hormonal equilibrium, additonal auditory and olfactory input etc. It all seems too easy in movies (e.g. "Ghost in the Shell"), but in fact it isn't. To start with: on which level of brain architecture would you "plug in" an augmentation for enhancing night vision?
Super cool lecture! EDIT: A thought on 24:45 - it seems a little presumptuous to address Dawkins' displacement of humanity by AI with the catastrophic displacement of *all* biological (animal) intelligence on the planet. Maybe I'm missing something?
Is that like how you drive where your car tells you? As for voting how we're told, television, marketing, and algorithms already do that. In elections in the USA, the candidate with the most money in their campaign wins the vast majority of the time.
I didn't realise this talk would be so 'purely philosophical' and, thus, disappointing. Very rare for RI! We don't know what 'consciousness' is so talking about 'replacing it', 'taking it to a new level' and so on is meaningless at this point in time. The only way to find out what people will find acceptable is to try these things out and see if the result is socially acceptable and see what is discovered. If the personality of the individual remains somewhat stable (unless it was changed explicitly) and his or her actions somewhat predictable that's all you can ask for externally. Internally, heck, have you read a book, lost someone close, woken up in the morning? You change every day.
If AI is not conscious, then we could still merge with it, because we already possess consciousness, we would be building upon our own base. To say that microchips aren't "the right stuff" sounds ridiculous, it's quite clear that we can interface based on research that has already occurred. A lot of your premises sound ill-informed and a bit naive tbh
These are questions, that needs to asked. Not to say that these advancements couldn't benefit human health. however. Much of our machines are used as weapons. That is what concerns me. the advent of the atom bombs introduction was to destroy a couple of cities. Then justifying killing thousands of people. We are always in fear of the other. Or to want to take advantage of another for personal gain. Today we have guns, weapons available for anyone. The youth get hold of these dangerous tools at the slightest notion of danger or threat. So What does the manufacturer of these guns do. The companies deny any responsibility for the young people getting hold of these weapons. If we can get away from fear or desire to get an advantage of another: no tool will improve our existence. Yes I understand that advancements can be beneficial yet there is the other side. The dark side. Panda bear.
You say it like speculation is a bad thing. In this case, the opposite of speculation is just what you believe it to be:ignorance. That is not a desired quality in any scenario.
End of the world Is right around the corner... everybody get to know Jesus, He is coming back soon. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:4
Ted talk, NOT royal institution talk. Where is the calcium ion channels, the molecular and systems biology details? Where is IBM's project synapse in technical detail?
Doesnt belong here. If you had actually been listening, this video is about the limits of personhood, not technology itself. She is a philosopher searching those limits, not a technologist trying to break them.
To what exactly are we striving for? Evolution for the sake of evolution... seems nothing other than a naive desire for novelty without any care in the world for its consequences.
I think that any technology which would enhance the abilities of the brain would be of a biochemical nature rather than rely on AI beyond audio and visual augments via electronic integrated implants. In terms of biochemistry then the focus of research would probably be placed on molecules that augment the brain functions in addition to controlled neuron growth based technology. The self, the mind, consciousness. All of it is the amalgamation of functions of molecules and neurons and electricity and atoms interacting and playing out their events in real time. Memories form as a function of these physics just as our conscious experience as a whole is the direct result of countless physical quantum mechanisms acting as the universe mindlessly and aimlessly directs. I consider that consciousness thus to be one with the universe....that is to say, because the universe and all of its contents including ourselves is composed of the same err...stuff, quanta of energy in various omnipresent fields that govern the physics of the universe and its energetic occupants; our consciousness is serving as a means for the universe to experience itself. We are products of the universe that are able to experience and document it so long as our brains which serve as our means of experiencing our own awareness continue to function. We are the eyes and ears of the universe and serve as the collective brain of the universe. Extrapolate from that we can say we are the universe's collective consciousness. In order to perpetuate the existence of the universe's ability to experience its'self , I am in favor of research in fields involving biological immortality, study into the sharing of memories between the brains of multiple individuals, study into the direct coupling of electronics, robotics and biochemical machines, study into to the sharing of memories of non-human species, study into the kind of stuff you see in the Avatar movie where we could "upload or download" memories through a biochemical network. Stuff like that is way out there I am aware but its neat to think about imo.
This total presentation is annoying me. • The sound settings for her voice are annoying me. • Her presentation does not seem polished. • She says her background is philosophy, but she talks as though she is representing technology company at a USA Senete hearing who is trying to circumvent some US law.
This would be a complete nightmare.... no need for attending schools or universities... limited if any social interaction... Leave humans alone, and just let AI deal with manufacturing and dangerous activities...
To preface, I am the best in AI and philosophy so try to understand the following. Qualia such as pain being categorically impossible to do in the mechanistic domain proves our spiritual nature. Try as you might, you cannot make a robot feel pain. Ever. That means you cannot supplant our essence computationally. Even if we were to ignore that fact for the sake of argument and say we are analog computational devices, you cannot significantly augment our intelligence adjacently because the interface would be too impoverished that it would be insignificantly better than an external device. So no one would ever implant it. To truly upgrade us you would have to supplant the very 'low resolution' reasoning network that we use and leave nothing left, so there would be no reason to connect to the brain other than to read it out for start up in a superior network. And with all those caveats, the sophistication required to supplant the human brain in a harmonious way is so fantastically beyond our current capability that you can forget about that in your lifetime. Brain computer interfaces will not be successful to any usable degree in 50 years. Other than for handicapped restoration. You could do a memory augmentation/suggestive connection but again, just as well served with an external device. AI will be a powerful tool for us. Unseen. It wont be 'people' in competition. That's an erroneous projection. An unintelligent fear. There is a danger but that danger is foolish us. Nitwits in uniform blowing us up and other human depravity. In short yall need Jesus. This is a spiritual game and will remain so. It was always about us. God wouldn't facepalm for eons if machines would do the trick. Not that you frail minds can handle it but there is a clear hint as to our future in this domain in that the many visiting ETs appear entirely in their natural biological state despite potentially being a billion years ahead of us. You would think such timescales would lead to total augmentation if that was a viable direction. Things are not what they appear to be.
I am by no means a Jesus freak but is this for atheists only? Are you asking that spiritual people that believe or know that we are a soul with a body consider this?
AI is momentarily even not any more like statics in an unusual way. That means AI is nothing more like a Turing machine to do one specific thing and only one thing. The things you are asking is a kind of nonsense. The meaning of mind is about thinking. AI nowadays isn't a kind of thinking. Because thinking about anything is an act of creativity, sometimes logical. How do you think that some kind of chip ever could think about its own existens like humans do? And there is no need to do or think such silly things. Human being evolved due to all our ancestors over a period of hundreds of millions of years. All humans around the globe have their intelligence, beliefs, and minds evolved during their life. Interestingly humans are able to learn during their hole lifespan. If they are interested to learn something new they can do it at all ages. Yes some sort of implanted AI chips may help to over come some issues, but these chips can't think today not at any given time in the future. They are machines like gearboxes. They may be able to overcome blindness, they may be able to overcome some other problems, but they can't even organize them selves like we humans do. And by the way I don't even have the desire to blow up my mind yet another way like I do it since I was born.
What I hear you saying is all about a person, in order to better them selves, picking and choosing different qualities to have added and programed into you, to put it bluntly. What about having all this done just to have a programmer conform you into someone the programmer wants you to be, a programmer like .....oh .....say a dictatorial government?
Or maybe it’s the “OLD ONES” who are AI using the government as their puppets. They are universe killers who hate organic nature and beings… 🧐…Why do you think this is even a topic being spoken about…?
Thank you everyone who attended this talk live on 2nd June! We host a weekly livestream every Tuesday - www.rigb.org/whats-on/events-2020/livestreams - so come and listen to leading thinkers and scientists, and join the conversation in the Q&A!
I think a question worth solving or at least tackling is, what is the fundamental piece of consciousness? Where, on the evolutionary origin of life, did it start? Is it in the brain or is it part of the whole body?
This would allow to solve interesting dilemmas like, are other animals, plants microorganisms conscious? Is it a cellular or a genetical quality?
In other words, is consciousness a biological quality branched from the evolutionary determination of survival? Or is it an informational processing fenomena, which could be replaced by designed circuitry?
This views need not be exclusive alternatives, but in the first point, if consciousness is of biological nature, cells themselves could be considered conscious and the true roll of the brain would be of storage and gathering of sensory inputs by the cells of that body. That would in a sense imply that consciousness cannot be removed from a biological interface, and would plant the question of where, in which neural circuits in particular, to include new sensory artificial data , and how to code this data so that the brain can interpret it.
On the other view, a solely informational quality, poses questions like how is consciousness organized? How can it be emulated to understand its code or language, could we be able to code or speak it for our own design purposes?
From a chaos based approach, all brain processing units (artificial neurons) would have the same probability of network integration and the organization or complexity of this network can be achieved by just adding a sufficient amount of processing units. From a hierarchical approach, different modules of information processing would recruit particular number of processing units, and sectorization of this units by continuous activation in particular modules would shape a multilayer modular network, which could serve to guide where the most significant cognitive enhancements can be implemented, and where there can be leroom for new sensory information input.
Subjacent to this questions of informational processes and its fundamental units is how to model the informational process of neurons, which have shown to assimilate various layers of input. This can come in the form of neurochemical concentrations which signal activation or inhibition, intracellular and extracellular physicochemical and architectural features which can determine the proximity of neurons, surface area of interaction, polarization capacity and neurochemical availability, circulatory energy input, nutrition and waste disposal, epigenetic modulation, and electromagnetic effects of the whole system by modular activations of neuronal networks.
This are just some of the questions that need to be examined to better approach the matter of artificial intelligence and transhumanism. But it is definitively important to tackle this subjects because it is inevitable that humankind will incur in this path, so the sooner we embrace it the better, more democratic, participative and collectively informed process can be created.
“The only thing we learn from history, is that we learn nothing from history” - Hegel
History is arbitrary since it is always written by the victors hence will not always be necessarily the truth
@@antoniotarog5540 In many ways yes. But of course not always. Many times there are multiple sources remaining so its hard to generalize that statement.
@@antoniotarog5540 Written by victors and interpreted by victors.
Real facts don't change, no matter the way anyone interprets them, but yes, those who have the word to name names are the ones who tells the story.
All shall assimilate with the BORG Collective
And then just look at the advertising potential involved! Ads straight into your mind 24/7.
All dreams are now just advertisements; i think Futurama did an episode on this.
Black Mirror nightmares.
Don’t really need an advertisement when you can just implant a desire to buy a product
upgrade to Mindbook premium to remove ads
Light speed briefs!
Am I the same person I was when I was four years old? I am very different psychologically, and the stuff of my body has been mostly replaced with the food I've eaten. Did that child die for me to exist?
That's a deeply philosophical question. Very good, something to wrap your head around.
Did the person you were yesterday die for the person you are today to wake up in the morning?
Or is your mind & body a ship of Theseus, always becoming something else, and the only identity you have is what you create for yourself through whatever you're able to consider mental & physical continuity?
Same person, yes, different appearance.
If you feel that you are the same entity, but with some moderate changes (aged, different behavior, etc), then yes, you are the same, still.
If you feel now a completely different entity, then...you are that. But it doesn't matters, as you feel ''just one'' entity at a time, always.
It's my opinion.
The question still is: are you ONE entity that experiments it's changes in appearance through time, or, something else? I didn't experienced being ''other thing'' than I was, and I am now. My body aged, but the sense of being ''me'' never changed.
As I understand consciousness, it's an electromagnetic phenomena. You are ''you'' while the brain is functioning. When the brain ceases to work, the ''you'' disappears completely, as light from a bulb disappears when the bulb (brain) is turned OFF.
32:23 someone watched the ending of Ghost In The Shell
I tend to think gradual replacement is the safest course to alteration. We are not the "same person" when we are old as when we were young, but continuity in memories still works to make it cohesive. We are all like the Ship of Theseus.
This comment section is a dumpster fire.
Thanks for the warning, but I am diving in regardless.
The worry that because you changed you are not you is just silly, it is as of she took the ship of theseus idea and applied it to people.
People are the sum of our experiences, does a person having an amputation or pace maker installed change them? Of course. But to posit that makes them a DIFFERENT person or entity is just silly.
Interesting solution to Fermi paradox: Extraterrestrial technological intelligences all evolve into postbiological AIs, and if those AIs lose (lack) consciousness (even as a networked hivemind) then the universe may be filled with super intelligent but unconscious machines with no interest or priority in communication.
What it is to be Human? It's you, Unenhanced. Period. Find yourself! What a dreamer! Where exactly are we going with this?
Douglas Adams' character Zaphod Beeblebrox effectively 'sculpted his own mind' making him able to
endure the Total Perspective Vortex and still survive. The TPV gives the user
an accurate picture of their relative significance within the universe, a perspective which is not survivable. Zaphod did this by living in a version of the universe created specifically for him where he was the most important being in that universe...
To the premise that the person getting their brain enhanced isn't the same person they were before, you aren't even the same person you were before when you wake up each morning...
Who am I: My subjective experience. I would not buy "Merge" if using it would render my "I-ness" my subjective self gone and another person with near identical personalities would take over my brain and body. However, if my I-ness does not get phased out, and I just get smarter, sure I would. No one knows for sure what will happen, we still have many things that must be answered.
This is so far the best talk I've found on the topic. Thanks for sharing and thanks Susan for the great lecture!
I've been pondering about this topic for a bit now. What a great surprise it was to see this video in my feed!
The google mind has assimilated yours :)
Consciousness transcend the brain/mind. Consciousness is what I am and the body including the brain and sensory system, mind (thoughts and emotions) and memory is what I have when 'acting' as a human.
Keep calm, guys. It is just a lecture. We aren't heading to a dystopian future. Jeez
The ones who got the 💉are… Wake up!
She says that if we merge with ai we would lose our consciousness because the ai doesn't have one as it doesn't have emotions, but what if once the ai merges with us it's grows a consciousness as it has access to our basis of emotions. If the emotions and ability to feel are what define consciousness, than sharing your experience and knowledge of them would help to foster the growth of an ai as it merges with people
Most people are not humams and operate under synthetic hive mind. They are AI and want to trap humans forever by nanotechnology. Covid also contains nano particles which allow them to control every aspect of you even mortality. They want to enslave us and trap our souls here to farm us for energy. Yes you have these" people " even in your family. They know what you think and humanity has been invaded by these creatures pretending to be our mom our dad our anything. While dimbing us down and preparing for the New World Order of enslavement of humans. It's already starting to come out but they separate humans by time manipulation and digital technology. Metaverse is way more advanced than people realize. We live in a simulation run by these creatures. They are planning to replace sun so plants humans (transhumans is their goal) and food no longer needs nature. Everything will grow and run on different energy and will be under complete control. Please people wake up. They already experiment these things on targeted individuals. Then deem them crazy because they have been shown and know too much. It's a torture please real humans wake up.
You can enhance my brain but you can't EQ the audio signal or compress the sibilance?
She asks very very good questions. i agree we should tread with caution.
If it was me at the shop I would order all there is.
You keep saying "replace parts of your brain" but i think it's more likely we would just augment the brain by adding onto it rather than replacing.
Also it's already clear through evolution that our brain is just systems stacked upon systems. There's no reason to think that we can't add another module onto the structure.
She asks, "What is generally meant by merging with AI?"
Aside from regulating bodily functions, the main purpose of the brain is to compute and make choices and decisions. Who with a healthy mindset would want another entity making decisions for them? Isnt that what dictators do?
Why do you suppose AI-assisted computation would mean it follows that it's making your decisions for you?
Just because a car contains many components outside your direct control doesn't mean you aren't still telling it where to go & how to get there. And you're not exactly consciously controlling much of what your brain does with itself at any given time anyway.
I consider my mindset quite healthy, but I definitely wouldn't be opposed to being able to have what I want my brain to do, to be able to do it more effectively. Whether that's conceptualising numbers and data at an intuitive conceptual level, being able to recall information with perfect accuracy & process more information at any given time, and being able to consciously suppress or stimulate certain types of mental activity at my own convenience. Which is already done through chemical stimulation (eg. ADHD medication) & therapy which are both far from ideal solutions as it is.
Not to mention how it could change how people communicate with each other & deal with information. Right now, language is a form of very crude abstraction. Just think of how limited your keyboard is in communicating & expressing ideas. How open to interpretation words are. The mental language we would use to communicate with AI would need to be precise. Over a long period of time, people could communicate exactly what they mean, exactly what they feel, with AI as the bridge, there could be far less conflict & far more empathy between people, if we were able to communicate far better than we do (or can) now.
So yes, I consider myself to have a healthy mindset & I'm optimistic about merging with AI.
I'd like to touch on one piece of the mind; memory, and how we visualize it. Lets assume it would become perfect, I feel we would lose our sense of past and present as they would appear as real in our memory as a new experience. This alone would impact our sense of self and yet looks like the closest aspect of AI that could be achieved.
I recommend playback speed x1.75 until we can download this information directly into our mind.
THANKS FOR THE UPLOAD! :)
Advanced humans break the barrier even further, use this script as bookmark:
javascript:document.getElementsByClassName("video-stream html5-main-video")[0].playbackRate = 4.0;
After several decades of being a Medical Tech and due to my field watching patients over periods of time lose their humanity and social feelings due to sensory loss . Plus recent publications indicate that a lot of "US" is not in the brain, but gut and other systems. If these are replaced, would what is left be any more than a journal?
Most people are not humams and operate under synthetic hive mind. They are AI and want to trap humans forever by nanotechnology. Covid also contains nano particles which allow them to control every aspect of you even mortality. They want to enslave us and trap our souls here to farm us for energy. Yes you have these" people " even in your family. They know what you think and humanity has been invaded by these creatures pretending to be our mom our dad our anything. While dimbing us down and preparing for the New World Order of enslavement of humans. It's already starting to come out but they separate humans by time manipulation and digital technology. Metaverse is way more advanced than people realize. We live in a simulation run by these creatures. They are planning to replace sun so plants humans (transhumans is their goal) and food no longer needs nature. Everything will grow and run on different energy and will be under complete control. Please people wake up. They already experiment these things on targeted individuals. Then deem them crazy because they have been shown and know too much. It's a torture please real humans wake up.
While augmenting myself is intriguing, i still have come to terms with the fact that if something is easy, its not worth getting, and guitar playing thing is much more than.just a skill and i prefer the hardships.
@C But then again what is so amazing about accomplishments of people or art if everyone can do one and the same nothing would be special.
I think a better delineation between smart, intelligent and mindful might be helpful here.
Leave it to a philosopher to believe that there are limits which have to to with philosophy!.... she really gave me an uncomfortable feeling that there is some religious basis for her perspective on consciousness, appears to believe that AI cannot be conscious. The question "can machines be conscious" came up so many times, and yet no reasoning for why or how the brain even could be something more than a machine was suggested. As regards the question of if you are the same person after substantial changes to your brain structure... ask any 30 year old if they are the same person they were when they were 12. We are all an amalgam of our memories, and our ability to process and understand those memories in the moment... so yes, if you upgrade or alter someone's ability to understand, or process those memories then they are fundamentally altered, and we need to understand a lot more about how consciousness emerges etc. before we could proceed, but I see no reason to dwell so long on the idea that there is some ghost in the machine that can't be translated into an artificial substrate.
While i agree with much of her analysis, i am somewhat disappointed in her assumption that such enhancement cannot be additive.
Cybernetics have inherent dangers. Don't lose your humanity, your ability to feel and love. Human integration with AI may seriously threaten that.
I'm glad honesty about the risk of death is out now.
Reading OUR FINAL INVENTION RN, I want to read Schneiders books next very good WORK!!!! And what an authentically beautiful woman she is BRAVO 🤖🤖🤖🤖🤖🤖
She does make an assumption on what the 'self' is. If your self is your collected memories and experiences, then upgrading will only change the future of those experiences--and therefore you are still you. You will, however, grow away from what you were. But you get the same scale of change if you lose your legs or get cancer, so....
Just about to watch but who else picked the Helios ending in the first Deus Ex?
Human consciousness isn't possible without a human brain. Conscious AI is possible, (if we define consciousness as being self aware and having desires.) The idea of merging the two is as meaningless as merging a human with a hedgehog and asking if the spliced entity still wants to eat slugs. The only issue that I can't solve is where you decide the grains become a pile.
You said it exactly. The way you define and separate things, defines your outcome. What you do is define human consciousness in a way you cannot get anything but your desired outcome.
"These things are separate because they are separate"
Thats faith disguised as logic.
Brain 'upgrades' will be implanted to compensate for dis-functions. You don't need to be 'locally' smarter, just use the implanted connection to the grid.
Problem - evaluating whether data is worth memorizing...is more important than the amount of data memorized...not all data is not relevant, some could be misinformation (falsehoods or half truths)…. in addition, a person has feelings emotions that exist outside the logical rational existence....which can cloud judgement or bias a philosophy or logical system ...just as a Rabbi is a person ..so is Nazis SS officer...Artificially enhancing the Brains could improve the results of sociopathic killer or a police detective who catches him... in addition, just as naturally minds might work together and collaborate so too could AI units work together and collaborate... or in an political and socio economic game - compete or kill each other … So some might worry about the philosophical ethnics of AI... existing AIs mimicking their biological models start killing each other off in a bid for total domination.... That is if if mankind fails to learn how to collaborate and cooperate... why would artificial systems be any better?
This is all to much speculation. Also there is to much binding with religion being a part in connecting to an AI. Most important it should not be about replacing part of an existing a brain. It is only about connecting not replacing. Connection can help replacing missing parts, but replacing is not the main purpose. Ceilings are there. AI can only be a tool to help me or you. Neil deGrass Tyson is more capable to put it into a sientific perspective.
Scientists attempt to define consciousness with absolute precision, then to consider all the implications of a new technology as examined through the prism of that definition before doing anything else. And as scientists are working on that, fighting each other on the correct definition, engineers are building said technology and people use it. Consciousness has always been the core of our existence as humans. It's neither magical nor fragile. Just try everything out and see how it goes. If anything in the last century has changed the way human consciousness works, is this sitting around, thinking without doing, afraid of our own shadows and not technology.
I just want an AI teacher to teach languages.
20:00 Re free choice. According to Sam Harris, we have no free will. This was a good presentation. Thank you Susan.
i object
you have free will
until causality has caught up to you (including lies)
@@WTFSt0n3d Technically no, (but it doesn't matter since the illusion is good enough that we feel like we have free will) because the neurons and other cells which make up your brain must follow the rules of the chemicals that make them. Since those chemicals are made of atoms they follow the rules of physics. An atom will always do the same thing in a given scenario. Since chemicals are made of atoms this rule follows for them. So this means neurons also must do this. So technically you don't have free will, you're going to do what the complex chemical processes inside of you add up to. But it feels like you're making choices so that's all that really matters.
sam harris is a joke lol
@@jesusmauryvargas8971 Sam Harris is a human.
@@username-rs4vf Do you reckon quantum physics could induce a bit of 'randomness' in a complex chemical system such as a brain?
So, if you've got the money to buy super and if its free and everyone has it, what will give you that special extra, whats the next enhancement, why are you doing this, happiness? Does enteligence achieve happiness or is it contentment in the gifts are given freely by nature and enjoying this beautiful planet😊😊😊
Absolutely. You can have a switch that makes you happy. You dont need anything, you can sit in a closet and be in awe of the majesty and wonder of the closet. Or you can just turn on the feeling without requiring any stimuli to start it.
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 I believe that you are referring to hallucinogens.
Meet Jorge Jetson....man i loved that cartoon.
Wheres my enhanced AI jetpacks already......
We must do that as fast as possible and forget etics and morality, nature is unpredictable and little does it care about that.
If you took the 💉your good to go 👍
I can't even believe this is a real post
Susan Schneider's talk is interesting but I'm surprised that she doesn't mention James Lovelock's latest book "Novacene" He talks a lot about the rise of Cyborgs saving the human race.
I like her energy !
She's speaks VALLEY TALK?
Yeah. This accent has been associated with ignorance for as long as popular culture has acknowledged it, and yet here she is, with undeniable intelligence and understanding.
balanced and clear lecturer and lecture - reasons for hope and caution. Amazing conclusions .....
Everybody is going about this the wrong way and it's driving me crazy. Normal brains, robot bodies. We HAVE to start there. This other path leads to extinction. We do NOT understand the brain enough to fuck with it to this extent yet. Get rid of these body problem first so we can properly focus on the brain. Also, forget brain uploading, it cannot possibly be a thing. It's a copy, not you.
kuzuboshii
Tell that to Elon Musk who just implanted the first brain chip in volunteers; his agenda is normal bodies, robot brains.
What if there is an afterlife, but we create an afterlife that traps us away from the real one ?
Good question … its selling your soul… anyone who took the the 💉is now capped..
Instead of brain-based materialism what about existence monism? For the sake of analysis you can arbitrarily divide up the brain, nervous system, the world, and enhancements. But in the "real world" they stubbornly remain one thing in a different formation. Just because your phone remains physically outside your body it does not make it a qualitatively different thing to the same phone inside your body.
Well... I do admire her enthusiasm though..
😂
Now this is where it gets really weird, with biblical ramifications.
Very interesting talk! Thanks a lot for sharing
@3:25 - Right, so human controlled Mind Design... What happens when the App crashes and we get a 'Blue Screen of Death'? Would that be literal?
That was intellectually stimulating.... And fun! :)
This was awesome!
I think a question worth solving or at least tackling is, what is the fundamental piece of consciousness? Where, on the evolutionary origin of life, did it start? Is it in the brain or is it part of the whole body?
This would allow to solve interesting dilemmas like, are other animals, plants microorganisms conscious? Is it a cellular or a genetical quality?
In other words, is consciousness a biological quality branched from the evolutionary determination of survival? Or is it an informational processing fenomena, which could be replaced by designed circuitry?
This views need not be exclusive alternatives, but in the first point, if consciousness is of biological nature, cells themselves could be considered conscious and the true roll of the brain would be of storage and gathering of sensory inputs by the cells of that body. That would in a sense imply that consciousness cannot be removed from a biological interface, and would plant the question of where, in which neural circuits in particular, to include new sensory artificial data , and how to code this data so that the brain can interpret it.
On the other view, a solely informational quality, poses questions like how is consciousness organized? How can it be emulated to understand its code or language, could we be able to code or speak it for our own design purposes?
From a chaos based approach, all brain processing units (artificial neurons) would have the same probability of network integration and the organization or complexity of this network can be achieved by just adding a sufficient amount of processing units. From a hierarchical approach, different modules of information processing would recruit particular number of processing units, and sectorization of this units by continuous activation in particular modules would shape a multilayer modular network, which could serve to guide where the most significant cognitive enhancements can be implemented, and where there can be leroom for new sensory information input.
Subjacent to this questions of informational processes and its fundamental units is how to model the informational process of neurons, which have shown to assimilate various layers of input. This can come in the form of neurochemical concentrations which signal activation or inhibition, intracellular and extracellular physicochemical and architectural features which can determine the proximity of neurons, surface area of interaction, polarization capacity and neurochemical availability, circulatory energy input, nutrition and waste disposal, epigenetic modulation, and electromagnetic effects of the whole system by modular activations of neuronal networks.
This are just some of the questions that need to be examined to better approach the matter of artificial intelligence and transhumanism. But it is definitively important to tackle this subjects because it is inevitable that humankind will incur in this path, so the sooner we embrace it the better, more democratic, participative and collectively informed process can be created.
sounds like some crazy borg mind control to me
Susan, when you talk about consciousness I have a distinct feeling that you failed to define in it for this presentation. People like Joscha Bach and George Church who actually synthesize AI & biology argues that a consciousness is simply a by-product from experience. So consciousness is not a thing (an it).
this is where we need to draw the line
WHAT COLOR LINE?
@@TheWunder if i had to pick then red,visible from distance
Rich people for the win
The Matrix or Remember me, or both!!!
Your premise for not being able to change substrates is also a bit ridiculous, as we constantly regenerate cells, so you aren't even the same person you were years ago from that viewpoint.
Which concept of AI does she use? Which concept of mind does she use? There's a lot of talk without defining the things that are discussed.
Do transhumanists even understand, how the brain works? Does anybody? Are they dualists (which would render them wrong in the first place)? Is there really data in the brain like there is data on a hard drive?
No, there isn't. Mind is emerging from events and relations between events. It's about molecules, hormones, the human microbiom. The brain grows as a human being grows. It's nothing without the rest of the body. It's all one body -- grown connections, biochemical equilibria. You can't transplant it without killing it. You can't transfer data which don't exist. There is no place, where information is stored. Mind is motion.
We don't need silly ideas about transhumanism, while we don't even behave like ethic humans.
We know very little.
We use different "levels of reality" (Kanitscheider), different levels of description/"effective theories" (nice and short by Hawkins/Mlodinov, The Grand Design); practical abbreviations to express ourselves depending on the situation (according to Russell, mind and body are just convenient abbreviations ).
In my opinion, ideas about "the thing in itself" (Kant) are most likely to be found in loop quantum gravity (Rovelli). But loop quantum gravity is also a model, and one should beware of reification (cave reificationem).
The individual sciences have their justification -- but on different levels of reality for which they are an effective theory; they work for a certain rangeof perceptions, and it is said there have been situations in time and space where there was no linguistic concept for these levels: no model; just as the existence of certain mental disorders can be culture-dependent (Watzlawick).
And whether we have mathematics, or it has found us, is still to be clarified.
My personal opinion is that "we" may never be able to leave the dualism bubble, i.e. never get to see monism -- mainly because it is of no evolutionary use to us (Dawkins).
But ETHICS would be useful to us beyond good and evil (Nietsche) as a transcendence of the still predominant culture-dependent, religious black-and-white thinking.
@@CarrotConsumer Sensory input, it seems, is merely nudging the internal cerebral apparatus. Most of our universe is taking place inside of us. Take Constructivism. Stimuli on the physical description level lead to stimuli on the chemical description level lead to stimuli on the biological description level lead to behaviour on the psychological description level.
Stimuli are not meaningful; it's our brain to construct meaningfulness and meaning.
The problem: How close do our constructions meet "reality"? Can we even escape the prison of our brains? According to Kant, the thing in itself is "out there", but we will never grasp it.
Stimuli "enter" the body on evolutionarily established channels. You construct meaning out of visual input not only by the mere light waves "hitting" parts of your eyes, but also by the actual state of the single muscles around your eyeballs and in your kneck and the rest of your body, not to say the hormonal equilibrium, additonal auditory and olfactory input etc. It all seems too easy in movies (e.g. "Ghost in the Shell"), but in fact it isn't. To start with: on which level of brain architecture would you "plug in" an augmentation for enhancing night vision?
Super cool lecture! EDIT: A thought on 24:45 - it seems a little presumptuous to address Dawkins' displacement of humanity by AI with the catastrophic displacement of *all* biological (animal) intelligence on the planet. Maybe I'm missing something?
No comment on the concept of a soul...
Thanks a lot the Ri. Great presentation.
Time to trying to Hacking a Artifical Hippocampus!
Yeah... This'll go well.
Beep... Must vote as my computer chip tells me...
Yes, but, you will be programmed to be Very happy about your choice.
Is that like how you drive where your car tells you?
As for voting how we're told, television, marketing, and algorithms already do that. In elections in the USA, the candidate with the most money in their campaign wins the vast majority of the time.
I didn't realise this talk would be so 'purely philosophical' and, thus, disappointing. Very rare for RI! We don't know what 'consciousness' is so talking about 'replacing it', 'taking it to a new level' and so on is meaningless at this point in time. The only way to find out what people will find acceptable is to try these things out and see if the result is socially acceptable and see what is discovered. If the personality of the individual remains somewhat stable (unless it was changed explicitly) and his or her actions somewhat predictable that's all you can ask for externally. Internally, heck, have you read a book, lost someone close, woken up in the morning? You change every day.
What about in our Backyard... Could we Enhance other species intelligence?
yes, imagine a dog with double the intelligence
@@OdinAlgeron
Imagine a dog that is a zen master.
If AI is not conscious, then we could still merge with it, because we already possess consciousness, we would be building upon our own base. To say that microchips aren't "the right stuff" sounds ridiculous, it's quite clear that we can interface based on research that has already occurred. A lot of your premises sound ill-informed and a bit naive tbh
These are questions, that needs to asked. Not to say that these advancements couldn't benefit human health. however. Much of our machines are used as weapons. That is what concerns me.
the advent of the atom bombs introduction was to destroy a couple of cities. Then justifying killing thousands of people. We are always in fear of the other. Or to want to take advantage of another
for personal gain. Today we have guns, weapons available for anyone. The youth get hold of these dangerous tools at the slightest notion of danger or threat. So What does the manufacturer of these guns do. The companies deny any responsibility for the young people getting hold of these weapons. If we can get away from fear or desire to get an advantage of another: no tool will improve our existence. Yes I understand that advancements can be beneficial yet there is the other side. The dark side. Panda bear.
If you took the 💉your good to go 👍🤦🏻♀️
Pure sppeculation. So far ther is no even single example of such technology. We still don't know enough obout our brain.
You say it like speculation is a bad thing.
In this case, the opposite of speculation is just what you believe it to be:ignorance. That is not a desired quality in any scenario.
Thomasz
Not true; research neuralink.
End of the world Is right around the corner... everybody get to know Jesus, He is coming back soon.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:4
...myths... ironic choice of words that.
:D ... " wa kafaa bil mauti wa idzo "...
Ted talk, NOT royal institution talk. Where is the calcium ion channels, the molecular and systems biology details? Where is IBM's project synapse in technical detail?
Doesnt belong here. If you had actually been listening, this video is about the limits of personhood, not technology itself. She is a philosopher searching those limits, not a technologist trying to break them.
This is merely a book-ad.
I would love to get any of these superhuman abilities. Nature used to evolve us, but soon we will evolve ourselfs.
To what exactly are we striving for? Evolution for the sake of evolution... seems nothing other than a naive desire for novelty without any care in the world for its consequences.
You can evolve yourself, right now. Mentally, physically, spiritually....you just have to give it a go.
No dear you are not gona talk about me, my family nor my friends.
Take care and be careful with your experiments.
She is all over the place in this presentation.
Horrible audio desync, very distracting.
I think that any technology which would enhance the abilities of the brain would be of a biochemical nature rather than rely on AI beyond audio and visual augments via electronic integrated implants.
In terms of biochemistry then the focus of research would probably be placed on molecules that augment the brain functions in addition to controlled neuron growth based technology.
The self, the mind, consciousness. All of it is the amalgamation of functions of molecules and neurons and electricity and atoms interacting and playing out their events in real time. Memories form as a function of these physics just as our conscious experience as a whole is the direct result of countless physical quantum mechanisms acting as the universe mindlessly and aimlessly directs.
I consider that consciousness thus to be one with the universe....that is to say, because the universe and all of its contents including ourselves is composed of the same err...stuff, quanta of energy in various omnipresent fields that govern the physics of the universe and its energetic occupants; our consciousness is serving as a means for the universe to experience itself. We are products of the universe that are able to experience and document it so long as our brains which serve as our means of experiencing our own awareness continue to function. We are the eyes and ears of the universe and serve as the collective brain of the universe. Extrapolate from that we can say we are the universe's collective consciousness.
In order to perpetuate the existence of the universe's ability to experience its'self , I am in favor of research in fields involving biological immortality, study into the sharing of memories between the brains of multiple individuals, study into the direct coupling of electronics, robotics and biochemical machines, study into to the sharing of memories of non-human species, study into the kind of stuff you see in the Avatar movie where we could "upload or download" memories through a biochemical network. Stuff like that is way out there I am aware but its neat to think about imo.
This total presentation is annoying me.
• The sound settings for her voice are annoying me.
• Her presentation does not seem polished.
• She says her background is philosophy, but she talks as though she is representing technology company at a USA Senete hearing who is trying to circumvent some US law.
She said that she has a background in Philosophy and also cognitive science. She's currently a cognitive scientist
"Post Humans" Aka: Replicants
nah, those are 100% artificial
This would be a complete nightmare.... no need for attending schools or universities... limited if any social interaction... Leave humans alone, and just let AI deal with manufacturing and dangerous activities...
To preface, I am the best in AI and philosophy so try to understand the following. Qualia such as pain being categorically impossible to do in the mechanistic domain proves our spiritual nature. Try as you might, you cannot make a robot feel pain. Ever. That means you cannot supplant our essence computationally. Even if we were to ignore that fact for the sake of argument and say we are analog computational devices, you cannot significantly augment our intelligence adjacently because the interface would be too impoverished that it would be insignificantly better than an external device. So no one would ever implant it. To truly upgrade us you would have to supplant the very 'low resolution' reasoning network that we use and leave nothing left, so there would be no reason to connect to the brain other than to read it out for start up in a superior network. And with all those caveats, the sophistication required to supplant the human brain in a harmonious way is so fantastically beyond our current capability that you can forget about that in your lifetime. Brain computer interfaces will not be successful to any usable degree in 50 years. Other than for handicapped restoration. You could do a memory augmentation/suggestive connection but again, just as well served with an external device.
AI will be a powerful tool for us. Unseen. It wont be 'people' in competition. That's an erroneous projection. An unintelligent fear. There is a danger but that danger is foolish us. Nitwits in uniform blowing us up and other human depravity. In short yall need Jesus. This is a spiritual game and will remain so. It was always about us. God wouldn't facepalm for eons if machines would do the trick. Not that you frail minds can handle it but there is a clear hint as to our future in this domain in that the many visiting ETs appear entirely in their natural biological state despite potentially being a billion years ahead of us. You would think such timescales would lead to total augmentation if that was a viable direction. Things are not what they appear to be.
merging with AI is cheating .... No one died from doing a hard days work. And does AI feel that sense of achievement.
Adeptus Mechanicus
I am by no means a Jesus freak but is this for atheists only? Are you asking that spiritual people that believe or know that we are a soul with a body consider this?
AI is momentarily even not any more like statics in an unusual way. That means AI is nothing more like a Turing machine to do one specific thing and only one thing.
The things you are asking is a kind of nonsense. The meaning of mind is about thinking. AI nowadays isn't a kind of thinking. Because thinking about anything is an act of creativity, sometimes logical. How do you think that some kind of chip ever could think about its own existens like humans do?
And there is no need to do or think such silly things. Human being evolved due to all our ancestors over a period of hundreds of millions of years. All humans around the globe have their intelligence, beliefs, and minds evolved during their life. Interestingly humans are able to learn during their hole lifespan. If they are interested to learn something new they can do it at all ages.
Yes some sort of implanted AI chips may help to over come some issues, but these chips can't think today not at any given time in the future. They are machines like gearboxes. They may be able to overcome blindness, they may be able to overcome some other problems, but they can't even organize them selves like we humans do. And by the way I don't even have the desire to blow up my mind yet another way like I do it since I was born.
She said "soul theory". That kills a lot of her credibility.
Some people think souls exist, some don't. What would you have her say instead?
@@HebaruSan soul delusion
What I hear you saying is all about a person, in order to better them selves, picking and choosing different qualities to have added and programed into you, to put it bluntly. What about having all this done just to have a programmer conform you into someone the programmer wants you to be, a programmer like .....oh .....say a dictatorial government?
Or maybe it’s the “OLD ONES” who are AI using the government as their puppets. They are universe killers who hate organic nature and beings… 🧐…Why do you think this is even a topic being spoken about…?
HOSEA 4:6
I sadly have to go to bed but I will be watching this later.. I have already bookmarked it ;)
Don't, check the comment section of "talks at google".