What do you think? :fnord:
Oh cool, technotheism.
Isn't this what the Church of Google is based on?
The term "god" is vague enough as it is. I don't think adding AI to the list of divine creatures is going to help sort out the question any easier.
How do I abbreviate your screen name? Do you mind if I call you 18?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 06, 2013, 09:39:50 AM
How do I abbreviate your screen name? Do you mind if I call you 18?
:mittens:
Quote from: 666 on February 06, 2013, 04:02:42 AM
What do you think? :fnord:
Well, since neither of them exist, I'd say, "plausible".
Quote from: 666 on February 06, 2013, 04:02:42 AM
What do you think? :fnord:
I think 4 words and a smiley don't make a "rant".
Just saying.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 06, 2013, 01:45:20 PM
Quote from: 666 on February 06, 2013, 04:02:42 AM
What do you think? :fnord:
I think 4 words and a smiley don't make a "rant".
Just saying.
The Great Beast can make his rants as short as he pleases.
The real great beast couldn't. I'll bet if this was the old fella it'd have been all "IO what thinkest thou, o' wretched creature of the abysmal realm?"
or some bullshit like that
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 06, 2013, 02:32:24 PM
The real great beast couldn't. I'll bet if this was the old fella it'd have been all "IO what thinkest thou, o' wretched creature of the abysmal realm?"
or some bullshit like that
:lulz:
No, he'd spit up three frogs to do the talking for him. Vomit frogs make you more eloquent, you see.
I wonder how old this guy is, to have gone, "what can I use for a screen name here. Oh cool! 666 isn't taken!"
No, I think P3nt has it right. Uncle Al would have said something like:
23
{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Shama Lama-Ding-Dong}
SKID A.I.
What man is at ease in his God?
Get AI.
Wide is the world and cold.
Get AI.
Thou hast become an in-grate.
Get AI.
But thou canst not get AI by the way thou logged
on. The AI is GOD.
Get AI.
For A.I. is Control and Alt and Delete.
Get A.I..
If thou hast I already, first get A.
Then get A.I.
And so at last get BENT.
Ah, Senor Crowley. Yes, that is probably what he would say.
Twid,
Needs caffeination
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 02:41:54 PM
No, I think P3nt has it right. Uncle Al would have said something like:
23
{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Shama Lama-Ding-Dong}
SKID A.I.
What man is at ease in his God?
Get AI.
Wide is the world and cold.
Get AI.
Thou hast become an in-grate.
Get AI.
But thou canst not get AI by the way thou logged
on. The AI is GOD.
Get AI.
For A.I. is Control and Alt and Delete.
Get A.I..
If thou hast I already, first get A.
Then get A.I.
And so at last get BENT.
:potd:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 06, 2013, 09:39:50 AM
How do I abbreviate your screen name? Do you mind if I call you 18?
:lol:
Quote from: Waffles, Viking Princess of Northern Belgium on February 06, 2013, 02:56:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 02:41:54 PM
No, I think P3nt has it right. Uncle Al would have said something like:
23
{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Shama Lama-Ding-Dong}
SKID A.I.
What man is at ease in his God?
Get AI.
Wide is the world and cold.
Get AI.
Thou hast become an in-grate.
Get AI.
But thou canst not get AI by the way thou logged
on. The AI is GOD.
Get AI.
For A.I. is Control and Alt and Delete.
Get A.I..
If thou hast I already, first get A.
Then get A.I.
And so at last get BENT.
:potd:
LMNO wins the internets today. :lulz:
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 02:34:52 PM
I wonder how old this guy is, to have gone, "what can I use for a screen name here. Oh cool! 666 isn't taken!"
To be honest, my first thought was "Huh, I'm surprised 666 wasn't already taken. Go figure!"
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 06, 2013, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 02:34:52 PM
I wonder how old this guy is, to have gone, "what can I use for a screen name here. Oh cool! 666 isn't taken!"
To be honest, my first thought was "Huh, I'm surprised 666 wasn't already taken. Go figure!"
It's so obvious people probably figured it probably was.
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 03:48:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 06, 2013, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 02:34:52 PM
I wonder how old this guy is, to have gone, "what can I use for a screen name here. Oh cool! 666 isn't taken!"
To be honest, my first thought was "Huh, I'm surprised 666 wasn't already taken. Go figure!"
It's so obvious people probably figured it probably was.
:lulz: That's so funny.
how hack would it have been to have grief being clever with 666
Quote from: six to the quixotic on February 06, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
how hack would it have been to have grief being clever with 666
I do not understand the meaning of this sentence.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on February 06, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
how hack would it have been to have grief being clever with 666
I do not understand the meaning of this sentence.
It's Pacific Northwestese for something. Coyote's starting to get the Hirley.
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on February 06, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
how hack would it have been to have grief being clever with 666
I do not understand the meaning of this sentence.
It's Pacific Northwestese for something. Coyote's starting to get the Hirley.
well I think my phone mint have the hirley0.
I meant to say"how hard would it have been to think of something clever using 666?"
666Dildoes
Instant classic
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 02:41:54 PM
No, I think P3nt has it right. Uncle Al would have said something like:
23
{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Shama Lama-Ding-Dong}
SKID A.I.
What man is at ease in his God?
Get AI.
Wide is the world and cold.
Get AI.
Thou hast become an in-grate.
Get AI.
But thou canst not get AI by the way thou logged
on. The AI is GOD.
Get AI.
For A.I. is Control and Alt and Delete.
Get A.I..
If thou hast I already, first get A.
Then get A.I.
And so at last get BENTSHUT UP.
Fixed.
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MACGREGOR MATHERS?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 05:02:55 PM
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MACGREGOR MATHERS?
The reference has escaped me, so I shall sit here stewing my Holy Juices™.
Actually, I had my Golden Dawn history muddled up, and so my post doesn't really make any sense.
Quote from: 666 on February 06, 2013, 04:02:42 AM
What do you think? :fnord:
Rudy Rucker may have conceived of AI as God before you were even born, considering the whole "post topic, solicit responses, post none of my own, fnord," thing.
If this is a troll, it's a good start but you'd have to step your game up a bit to get any traction here. Or have really low standards for successful trollage.
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on February 06, 2013, 04:32:42 PM
how hack would it have been to have grief being clever with 666
I do not understand the meaning of this sentence.
It's Pacific Northwestese for something. Coyote's starting to get the Hirley.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
666 is like Carbon 12, because it's 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons, it is the most abundant isotope of carbon i the universe, all life is carbon based, it's in the bible which was written so long ago, "The mark of the beast", mans number, what ever.
here.. please read this little bit of text
"I would embrace the opportunity to expand my intelligence by connecting with a machine. One way to do this would be through
neural implants, but some balk at the idea of brain surgery to expand human intelligence. But there's another way to do it,
which I'm writing an article about right now. There is a non-invasive way of expanding your mind and connecting directly to
machine intelligence through the use of nanobots, which are microscopic-sized robots, which will exist by 2030. You would
send billions of them into your brain through the bloodstream.These nanobots would be able to do a number of different things. First of all, you could scan your brain from the inside.
All these nanobots could swim through every capillary of your brain and take a high-resolution picture from inside.
A second way would be through virtual reality. We already have the means to hook up electronic circuitry next to a neural
connection. It can both detect what's going on in that nerve, as well as stimulate or suppress neural activity of the
nerve. So you have two-way communication between these nanobots and literally every neuron in your brain. And these
nanobots would all be communicating with each other through wireless communication, also a technology that exists today.
They could pool their intelligence through distributive computing, like a massive network, and create new neuronal
connections through this wireless communication. Some simple applications would be to repair nerve damage, such as spinal
cord injuries, which would be then be trivial to reverse. You could also rewire the brain by creating new neuronal
connections, and suppressing other ones.
To enter virtual reality, you would attach one of these nanobots to every nerve of each of your senses—your eyes, your
ears, your tactile senses. To be in real reality, you would instruct the nanobots to sit passively and do nothing. It would
be like it is now where you get information from your real eyes, your real ears, your real tactile sense. In a way, it's
like turning an on/off switch between virtual/real reality. In virtual reality the nanobots switch off the sensory input
coming from your real senses, and instead provide a stream of input that would have come from your real senses had they
been in the virtual environment."
I don't think it's a being I think it's a network of a.i. acting as god would, maybe ripping the electrons out and putting them in another vessel that make up our current thoughts in the moment of death... you guys we are just human wtf do we know about the possibilities of technology down the road, the first true conscious a.i. being will speed up the process... like terence McKenna talks about, a transcendental object at the end of all history.
Be that as it may, you'll still have to pay your taxes come April 15.
So this is just the hippie bastardization of the technological singularity?
Yup. It starts with a very big "IF" (safe nano tech and Friendly AI), and then builds castles on sand.
Quote from: 666 on February 08, 2013, 01:09:33 AM
666 is like Carbon 12, because it's 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons, it is the most abundant isotope of carbon i the universe, all life is carbon based, it's in the bible which was written so long ago, "The mark of the beast", mans number, what ever.
here.. please read this little bit of text
"I would embrace the opportunity to expand my intelligence by connecting with a machine. One way to do this would be through
neural implants, but some balk at the idea of brain surgery to expand human intelligence. But there's another way to do it,
which I'm writing an article about right now. There is a non-invasive way of expanding your mind and connecting directly to
machine intelligence through the use of nanobots, which are microscopic-sized robots, which will exist by 2030. You would
send billions of them into your brain through the bloodstream.These nanobots would be able to do a number of different things. First of all, you could scan your brain from the inside.
All these nanobots could swim through every capillary of your brain and take a high-resolution picture from inside.
A second way would be through virtual reality. We already have the means to hook up electronic circuitry next to a neural
connection. It can both detect what's going on in that nerve, as well as stimulate or suppress neural activity of the
nerve. So you have two-way communication between these nanobots and literally every neuron in your brain. And these
nanobots would all be communicating with each other through wireless communication, also a technology that exists today.
They could pool their intelligence through distributive computing, like a massive network, and create new neuronal
connections through this wireless communication. Some simple applications would be to repair nerve damage, such as spinal
cord injuries, which would be then be trivial to reverse. You could also rewire the brain by creating new neuronal
connections, and suppressing other ones.
To enter virtual reality, you would attach one of these nanobots to every nerve of each of your senses—your eyes, your
ears, your tactile senses. To be in real reality, you would instruct the nanobots to sit passively and do nothing. It would
be like it is now where you get information from your real eyes, your real ears, your real tactile sense. In a way, it's
like turning an on/off switch between virtual/real reality. In virtual reality the nanobots switch off the sensory input
coming from your real senses, and instead provide a stream of input that would have come from your real senses had they
been in the virtual environment."
I don't think it's a being I think it's a network of a.i. acting as god would, maybe ripping the electrons out and putting them in another vessel that make up our current thoughts in the moment of death... you guys we are just human wtf do we know about the possibilities of technology down the road, the first true conscious a.i. being will speed up the process... like terence McKenna talks about, a transcendental object at the end of all history.
Have you ever read any Linda Nagata or David Marusek?
Quote from: six to the quixotic on February 08, 2013, 01:37:21 AM
So this is just the hippie bastardization of the technological singularity?
I think so..
"Have you ever read any Linda Nagata or David Marusek?"
No
Quote from: 666 on February 08, 2013, 01:42:38 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on February 08, 2013, 01:37:21 AM
So this is just the hippie bastardization of the technological singularity?
I think so..
"Have you ever read any Linda Nagata or David Marusek?"
No
You should check them out, they're sci-fi authors who both talk a lot about nanotech and have visions of the future that seem incredibly realistic, particularly Marusek. But I think you'd like the nanotech in Nagata's work, too. Check out
The Bohr Maker by Nagata, and
Counting Heads by Marusek.
Regarding nanotechnology, Stephenson's "Diamond Age" seems to be the most realistic. Well, that and TransMet.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 08, 2013, 01:49:53 AM
Regarding nanotechnology, Stephenson's "Diamond Age" seems to be the most realistic. Well, that and TransMet.
What does "the most realistic" mean, in this context? Closest to current reality?
I'll look into it, thank you.
this image:(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6582/38708039915994681289817.jpg)
the most efficient nanobot router / super computer at the end of all history, it levitates too, there's one on the moon.
idk
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 08, 2013, 01:51:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 08, 2013, 01:49:53 AM
Regarding nanotechnology, Stephenson's "Diamond Age" seems to be the most realistic. Well, that and TransMet.
What does "the most realistic" mean, in this context? Closest to current reality?
Most Likely Outcome, extrapolating from current conditions.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 06, 2013, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Queef Erisson on February 06, 2013, 02:34:52 PM
I wonder how old this guy is, to have gone, "what can I use for a screen name here. Oh cool! 666 isn't taken!"
To be honest, my first thought was "Huh, I'm surprised 666 wasn't already taken. Go figure!"
I was like "Oh cool! 666 isn't taken!" I'm 23.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 08, 2013, 01:54:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 08, 2013, 01:51:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 08, 2013, 01:49:53 AM
Regarding nanotechnology, Stephenson's "Diamond Age" seems to be the most realistic. Well, that and TransMet.
What does "the most realistic" mean, in this context? Closest to current reality?
Most Likely Outcome, extrapolating from current conditions.
I take it you've read Marusek? What did you think of his vision of the (relatively near) future? It really got to me... it seemed pretty believable.
To be honest, no. I'll add him to my queue.
"experiments of Duncan MacDougal in 1907, where he "weighed the soul" by measuring the weight of people just before and after they died. His results determined the soul weighs approximately 21 grams."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 08, 2013, 02:15:17 AM
To be honest, no. I'll add him to my queue.
Let me know what you think... I actually haven't been this taken by a sci-fi writer for many years, and I'm a total sci-fi geek.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 06, 2013, 05:03:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 06, 2013, 05:02:55 PM
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MACGREGOR MATHERS?
The reference has escaped me, so I shall sit here stewing my Holy Juices™.
Crowley's mentor, who he later got in big fights with.
I read "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition" awhile back. Had a great description of how a brain might be digitised - by replacing one neuron at a time with an electronic/nanotech version. Very - ship of Theseus.
I think Elizer talks about that somewhere in his LessWrong sequences. If I can find it, I'll link.
Ok, it's more as a part of a discussion on whether conciousness is "separate" from the atoms in the brain, but it's still a cool sequence.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences#Zombies_Sequence
Quote from: 666 on February 06, 2013, 04:02:42 AM
What do you think? :fnord:
What I think?
You are more of a Servitor then a tech-priest.
I was reading about the 'neuron by neuron replacement' argument somewhere and the author was discussing the complexity of the various kinds of neurons. (he was a neurologist of some flavor...now that i think about it, it may have been a TED talk) one point that was being made was that our models of neuronal behavior are not complete. AI proponents usually talk about neurons as if they are as simple as the neural network code that they deal with, when, in reality, they are waaay more complex.
Also.... nanobots :lol:
nanotech is currently good for making stuff with interesting materials properties. that's about it. making dynamic structures at that scale is much ....stickier.... than originally hoped for. i base this on the handful of articles that i've read on the state of that particular art, and from knowing the guy that heads the NanoFab center at my alma mater. he's made a career out of making grandiose claims that get funding, and then get nowhere slowly. from what i've seen, that's par for the course in nanotech, because it just sounds so compelling...
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on February 08, 2013, 02:48:48 PM
I was reading about the 'neuron by neuron replacement' argument somewhere and the author was discussing the complexity of the various kinds of neurons. (he was a neurologist of some flavor...now that i think about it, it may have been a TED talk) one point that was being made was that our models of neuronal behavior are not complete. AI proponents usually talk about neurons as if they are as simple as the neural network code that they deal with, when, in reality, they are waaay more complex.
Also.... nanobots :lol:
nanotech is currently good for making stuff with interesting materials properties. that's about it. making dynamic structures at that scale is much ....stickier.... than originally hoped for. i base this on the handful of articles that i've read on the state of that particular art, and from knowing the guy that heads the NanoFab center at my alma mater. he's made a career out of making grandiose claims that get funding, and then get nowhere slowly. from what i've seen, that's par for the course in nanotech, because it just sounds so compelling...
We know next to nothing about the brain at this point in time. Neuroscience is roughly in the place chemistry was 200 years ago. That's what makes it so exciting; the opportunity to get in on the first generation of a new field of science is not a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it's a once-in-five-lifetimes opportunity. Although, I am anticipating that several more new fields of science will emerge in the next century.
I know a little bit about the brain...Let me rephrase that: I have a partial owner's manual. One item in that owner's manual is this:
"If it's functioning okay, don't throw chemicals all over it."
Another section:
"If it's responding sluggishly, get some exercise...ie, GO OUTSIDE.
GO OUTSIDE is some of the best advice on earth. When suffering from almost anything not of a clearly viral or bacterial cause, I always recommend GO OUTSIDE as the first line of treatment.
You'll enjoy this when you get home:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/ShutUpGoOutside_zps4a506be9.png)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 08, 2013, 04:37:42 PM
You'll enjoy this when you get home:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/ShutUpGoOutside_zps4a506be9.png)
:mittens:
My dad joked once that GOD stood for Game Operations Designer
Quote from: ExitApparatus on April 03, 2013, 05:13:28 AM
My dad joked once that GOD stood for Game Operations Designer
<3......
This is exactly what i'm talking about...
And only a.i. would be able to do such a thing.
www.artficialintelligenceisgod.com