AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Let's imagine that futurology is a widely accepted field science. I'm not going to explore whether it is or not. Let's just say it is.
The most intimate decisions made by homo sapiens sapiens often relate to who to f*ck, and when to do it. Further, we do so under the cover and the gloss of love, supposedly the most elevated of emotions, particularly pertaining to the love that gives no regard to self.
Comes now, the idea that even the most human, the most personal of emotions, may be reified in some way by mechanical means. And I'm not talking about sex toys.
To cut to the chase, gentlepersons: Humanity, to say nothing of sex, as we know it, will not exist only in its present form in two centuries.
In their work Beyond Humanity: Cyberevolution and Future Minds, evolutionary biologist Gregory Paul and artificial intelligence expert Earl D. Cox put the case for human extinction rather succinctly: “First we suffer, then we die. This is the great human dilemma.” As the extinctionists see it, the problem with human life is not simply suffering and death but the tyranny of desire: “I resent the fact,” says Carnegie Mellon University roboticist Hans Moravec, “that I have these very insistent drives which take an enormous amount of effort to satisfy and are never completely appeased.” Inventor Ray Kurzweil anticipates that by 2019 virtual sex, performed with the aid of various mechanisms providing complete sensory feedback, will be preferred for its ability “to enhance both experience and safety.” But this is clearly only the beginning of the story:
["]Group sex will take on new meaning in that more than one person can simultaneously share the experience of one partner … (perhaps the one virtual body will reflect a consensus of the attempted movements of the multiple partners). A whole audience of people—who may be geographically dispersed—could share one virtual body while engaged in sexual experience with one performer.["]
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 20466 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Well, if you really want to wait until 2019 to get some (albeit virtually), be my guest. However, I would offer that the quote below is an indicator that you may find it advantageous to get in the game sooner rather than later:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): Further, we do so under the cover and the gloss of love, supposedly the most elevated of emotions, particularly pertaining to the love that gives no regard to self.
Love as "gloss" or "cover"? Methinks you need to get out more.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Deskflier From Sweden, joined Jan 2007, 537 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2476 times:
And why would robots want to "do it" with us? I can see how you could use a computer program in a game console to your pleasure, but why would robots want to have intercourse, or even petting, with frail and stupid humans?
How can anyone not fly, when we live at a time when we can fly?
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2469 times:
Quoting Deskflier (Reply 16): And why would robots want to "do it" with us? I can see how you could use a computer program in a game console to your pleasure, but why would robots want to have intercourse, or even petting, with frail and stupid humans?
I think that the premise is that since human beings will initially be cyberneticized, as the process has already been begun through the use of prosthetics, orthotics, and the like, the robots spoken of would essentially be us. The replacement of biological parts would continue along a path toward neural subsitution. Work has already begun toward various analogous ameliorative and other neurological interfaces.
Kurzweil and others have also spoken of the "uploading" of our intelligence to machines in order to prevent us from dying when our bodies fail for reasons of old age.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Quoting Deskflier (Reply 18): As an avid motorcyclist, I don´t give that possibility much thought. It would actually be a nice surprise if old age turns out to be the reason for my death.
I admire you for your courage and dedication.
The article, I think, addresses the desires of those who might think that a nearly complete fusion of man and machine could occur in the intermediate future -- one that, because of its scale, will involve neither you, nor me.
It is virtually certain that none of us currently posting on the Internet, no matter how young, will be alive when the full implications of the futurology I cited become clear.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 69 Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2434 times:
Every compliment paid to this idea, every argument in support, every opinion to the effect that it is inevitable is inextricably rooted in the concept that the individual self is more important than all other selves combined. Narcissm and self indulgence to triumph over the entire biosphere.
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): I resent the fact,” says Carnegie Mellon University roboticist Hans Moravec, “that I have these very insistent drives which take an enormous amount of effort to satisfy and are never completely appeased.”
All of these are engineered by evolution (or intelligently designed by a white, blue-eyed God) to advance THE SPECIES. To the species the individual simply does not matter as long as there are lots of individuals. Don't believe that - just have a pet rabbit some time. Rabbits have many offspring because most of them die young.
Now here we are conquering one disease after another and not about to come up with any good ideas about what to do with all the excess human beings overgrazing the planet and everyone, it seems, with a soapbox to stand on now wants to be immortal and is willing to be frozen or become a machine to do it.
Sorry folks but this whole concept is porn. Interactive, but serving porn purposes and, thus, precisely equal in merit to chewing gum. It is a way to pass time.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
SlamClick -- excellent points! Very good, indeed.
The question now in my mind is whether the desire for immortality is meritorious. It is certainly interesting in a detached sort of way to be able to see the universe progress in the fullness of time, to see galaxies rise and fall, and to see the fate of all there is. But -- from the standpoint of a single consciousness, a single perceiver? All alone, in the dark? For aeons that pass, one second at a time?
This question of immortality isn't answered by any religion, any more than by science, save as to those that place nirvana at the center. As I understand it, the achievement of same is not that of self, but of a selfless merger into the greatness of the universe. It's certainly an opposite pole from the idea that one must live forever.
As once I must have read: Heaven must be boring, because, there, we are condemned to live.
Quote: Let's imagine that futurology is a widely accepted field of science.