death and beyond

[l0rd]

 

Exactly this. I think it would be possible with the technology we currently have to replicate an animal's intelligence. It is just that humans are infinitely more complex.

 

That's actually not what Reb was trying to say at all. Anyways, humans are about 99.4% equal to chimpanzees in our genes (and very close to all other mammals), no where near infinite.

[obfuscator]

 

Exactly this. I think it would be possible with the technology we currently have to replicate an animal's intelligence. It is just that humans are infinitely more complex.

 

That's actually not what Reb was trying to say at all. Anyways, humans are about 99.4% equal to chimpanzees in our genes (and very close to all other mammals), no where near infinite.

 

 

 

But look at that huge difference in that .06%. I'm well aware of the genetic differences but the human mind is capable of so much more.

[l0rd]

 

Exactly this. I think it would be possible with the technology we currently have to replicate an animal's intelligence. It is just that humans are infinitely more complex.

 

That's actually not what Reb was trying to say at all. Anyways, humans are about 99.4% equal to chimpanzees in our genes (and very close to all other mammals), no where near infinite.

 

 

 

But look at that huge difference in that .06%. I'm well aware of the genetic differences but the human mind is capable of so much more.

 

 

 

I'm really not quite sure about the "huge difference" you speak of. Sure, we have self-awareness and the ability to create technology, but the intelligence of a ape vs. a human isn't extremely different, let alone infinitely different.

 

Don't just assume your argument when you look at civilization and the technology of the world, that does not measure our intelligence, it is merely a product of it. As our technology gets more advanced, it doesn't mean that we as humans are physically getting smarter, that is not how cumulative technological advancement works.

 

 

 

Next time you assert a fact, would you care to elaborate on it a bit?

[Omar]

Nothingness I think, but there's no way to be sure.

[Zierro]

Don't just assume your argument when you look at civilization and the technology of the world, that does not measure our intelligence, it is merely a product of it.

 

 

 

That technology wouldn't be there if it weren't for our intelligence, so why shouldn't it be used to measure? Compare the technology of man to the technology of chimps. The reason there is such a large gap is solely because of the difference in intelligence and our brains.

[obfuscator]

 

Exactly this. I think it would be possible with the technology we currently have to replicate an animal's intelligence. It is just that humans are infinitely more complex.

 

That's actually not what Reb was trying to say at all. Anyways, humans are about 99.4% equal to chimpanzees in our genes (and very close to all other mammals), no where near infinite.

 

 

 

But look at that huge difference in that .06%. I'm well aware of the genetic differences but the human mind is capable of so much more.

 

 

 

I'm really not quite sure about the "huge difference" you speak of. Sure, we have self-awareness and the ability to create technology, but the intelligence of a ape vs. a human isn't extremely different, let alone infinitely different.

 

Don't just assume your argument when you look at civilization and the technology of the world, that does not measure our intelligence, it is merely a product of it. As our technology gets more advanced, it doesn't mean that we as humans are physically getting smarter, that is not how cumulative technological advancement works.

 

 

 

Next time you assert a fact, would you care to elaborate on it a bit?

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, Will do.

 

 

 

On the level of basic intelligence, yes, humans and apes are very similar. I'm talking about the capability for thought beyond the immediate. Morals, decisions, the ability to create, the ability to look outside the box, the ability to do what doesn't make sense; these are all things that an ape just isn't capable of. I'm not saying we are completely different, but the human mind is capable of far more than an ape. For example, this conversation. I highly doubt an ape would ever have that. Or even begin to understand that.

 

 

 

I agree that we as humans don't get smarter, but we do get more knowledgeable. Once again, something an animal is never capable of. You can't expect an ape to figure out how to build a car and then pass on that knowledge, you just can't.

[l0rd]

 

I agree that we as humans don't get smarter, but we do get more knowledgeable. Once again, something an animal is never capable of. You can't expect an ape to figure out how to build a car and then pass on that knowledge, you just can't.

 

That ability to pass on information in the way we can today is only available to us by means of cumulative technological advancement, so using it as an argument is kind of a useless. Start looking at the actual intellect of the creature for your opinion.

 

 

 

Anyways, I never said I doubted the obvious: that humans are much smarter than apes. I said that they are no where near extremely, or as you said it, infinitely different in intellect. Of course humans have these abilities, but apes still make decisions, reason, and build things, just on a much simpler level. There isn't much of a difference in the spectrum of life-form, and definitely not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. Oh, and numbers don't lie :shame: .

 

 

 

 

That technology wouldn't be there if it weren't for our intelligence, so why shouldn't it be used to measure? Compare the technology of man to the technology of chimps. The reason there is such a large gap is solely because of the difference in intelligence and our brains.

 

 

 

If you had understood my point in the rest of my paragraph your question might have been answered. I say our technology is not a measure, but a product of our intelligence. If you were to use it as a measure, you would say that people in the 1970's with the same mental capacity as we have today, would not be as smart because their technology wasn't up-to-par with ours today just because the personal computer and other things hadn't been invented yet. This is why it is illogical to be called a measure.

[IGoddessI]

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying it was pointless going down into infinite detail about "conciousness" etc... because it is very hard to change a persons beliefs. Because of what they "feel". It's hard to describe.

 

 

 

And, I didn't really get your tone. Condescending ? Placating ? Annoyed ?

 

 

 

What are you saying ? Can you make it clearer for me ?

 

 

 

I thought you were talking about how pointless other people's arguments were. I didn't realize you were actually referring to "consciousness" in general. Looks like we have similar ideas. The last part was a joke, (I guess you could say the tone was sarcasm - like a friend playfully teasing the other and not meaning it) you're very well spoken hun ;) I tend to take little stabs here and there playfully making fun of my mates but they know I don't mean it. They do it back to me too.

[obfuscator]

 

That ability to pass on information in the way we can today is only available to us by means of cumulative technological advancement, so using it as an argument is kind of a useless. Start looking at the actual intellect of the creature for your opinion.

 

Not at all. I can tell you something verbally, and you will remember it. And you can pass it on, and improve on it, and pass it on again. Apes can't do that, and that isn't reliant on any sort of technology.

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I never said I doubted the obvious: that humans are much smarter than apes. I said that they are no where near extremely, or as you said it, infinitely different in intellect. Of course humans have these abilities, but apes still make decisions, reason, and build things, just on a much simpler level. There isn't much of a difference in the spectrum of life-form, and definitely not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. Oh, and numbers don't lie :shame:

 

 

 

Exactly, on a much simpler level. What I am arguing is that the difference in the level that we do those things is enough that it won't be possible to create truly artificial intelligence any time in the near future with the technology we have.

[Zierro]

If you had understood my point in the rest of my paragraph your question might have been answered. I say our technology is not a measure, but a product of our intelligence. If you were to use it as a measure, you would say that people in the 1970's with the same mental capacity as we have today, would not be as smart because their technology wasn't up-to-par with ours today just because the personal computer and other things hadn't been invented yet. This is why it is illogical to be called a measure.

 

 

 

Technology is exponentially progressive so it's obvious that people in the past aren't going to have as much technology as people in the future. But what kind of progress have chimps made, may I ask? The ability to make progress is what I meant by technology - I didn't specifically mean what technology we have available today. The thing that sets us apart is that we have the ability (although it is a given that it requires time to see results) to progress, whereas chimps haven't been doing anything new no matter how much time you give them.

[l0rd]

 

Not at all. I can tell you something verbally, and you will remember it. And you can pass it on, and improve on it, and pass it on again. Apes can't do that, and that isn't reliant on any sort of technology.

 

 

 

Please note "the way we can today" in my post. Any simple talking to someone isn't a way to pass on complex knowledge and invention, you'll need paper and writing (all stuff that has been invented).

 

 

 

 

Exactly, on a much simpler level. What I am arguing is that the difference in the level that we do those things is enough that it won't be possible to create truly artificial intelligence any time in the near future with the technology we have.

 

How can you possibly say that when the time comes when we can recreate an ape's mind, we'll be much less technologically advanced than when we recreate a humans mind? No, the two types of brains' products (thinking, consciousness, verbal, etc.) aren't different enough to warrant a huge gap in technology. Just because we've come a long way in technology, doesn't mean that our brain itself is even twice as complicated as an apes. When brain activity in a ape is captured, the human brain is similar enough to be not far off.

 

 

in the near future with the technology we have.

 

And now I see you agree with me.

 

 

 

Technology is exponentially progressive so it's obvious that people in the past aren't going to have as much technology as people in the future. But what kind of progress have chimps made, may I ask? The ability to make progress is what I meant by technology - I didn't specifically mean what technology we have available today. The thing that sets us apart is that we have the ability (although it is a given that it requires time to see results) to progress, whereas chimps haven't been doing anything new no matter how much time you give them.

 

 

 

Bravo, one of the many differences between chimps and apes. =D>

[Zierro]

Bravo, one of the many differences between chimps and apes. =D>

 

 

 

Huh? What are you talking about?

[l0rd]

Bravo, one of the many differences between chimps and apes. =D>

 

 

 

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

Rofl, woops. :wall: Meant to say "between apes and humans."

 

Oh, and after re-reading it, I seemed to come off a little condescending. I was just trying to acknowledge that I agree with what you said, but I don't find it very significant given the amount of other differences.

[fastortoise]

I was going to make a long post on the differences between humans and the other primates, since I'm currently reading a thick book about it, but then I realized it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

 

 

 

As for the idea of consciousness being preserved even after death - meh. I stand behind the view that we are just machines built by our genes in order to replicate, and that everything we are hardwired to do is coded in our genes. Obviously as humans, our actions are more influenced on our culture, but you can still imagine the most basic lifeform as a capsule of protected genes deep inside your body attached to miles of webs in order to communicate (through our bodies) with other genes. The brain and consciousness are just other ways for genes to efficiently interact with their environment and survive/replicate. Whenever our body is useless (cannot replicate and is draining resources from brothers/sisters, who share 50% of the genes in our body), we die and everything shuts down forever, no more consciousness.

[i_love_burritos]

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying it was pointless going down into infinite detail about "conciousness" etc... because it is very hard to change a persons beliefs. Because of what they "feel". It's hard to describe.

 

 

 

And, I didn't really get your tone. Condescending ? Placating ? Annoyed ?

 

 

 

What are you saying ? Can you make it clearer for me ?

 

 

 

I thought you were talking about how pointless other people's arguments were. I didn't realize you were actually referring to "consciousness" in general. Looks like we have similar ideas. The last part was a joke, (I guess you could say the tone was sarcasm - like a friend playfully teasing the other and not meaning it) you're very well spoken hun ;) I tend to take little stabs here and there playfully making fun of my mates but they know I don't mean it. They do it back to me too.

 

 

 

Ok. :)

 

 

 

I think I over-complicated it. Using the analogy of preeminent life as how we are not just simply influenced by our external environments, may have come off as a little stuck up ? Can't find the word.

 

 

 

But, yeah. It's ok.

[obfuscator]

 

Please note "the way we can today" in my post. Any simple talking to someone isn't a way to pass on complex knowledge and invention, you'll need paper and writing (all stuff that has been invented).

 

 

 

I highly disagree. I'm not talking necessarily about building a car, but even the conversations you've had with someone about anything can work. Maybe you've talked to your parents, about something important, and they've given you advice. You can remember it, learn from it, and pass it on. Apes can't. Maybe you've debated with someone about something, similar to what we are doing now (except in writing). You can still remember it, use it, spread it, and learn from it. Apes just don't have that kind of intelligence.

 

 

How can you possibly say that when the time comes when we can recreate an ape's mind, we'll be much less technologically advanced than when we recreate a humans mind? No, the two types of brains' products (thinking, consciousness, verbal, etc.) aren't different enough to warrant a huge gap in technology. Just because we've come a long way in technology, doesn't mean that our brain itself is even twice as complicated as an apes. When brain activity in a ape is captured, the human brain is similar enough to be not far off.

 

 

 

Physically complicated, not at all. The brains are physically very similar (as you've pointed out before). But a human brain is capable of so much more in terms of consciousness, thinking, etc that I think it will take a very big gap in technology to truly perfect it.

[l0rd]

 

Physically complicated, not at all. The brains are physically very similar (as you've pointed out before). But a human brain is capable of so much more in terms of consciousness, thinking, etc that I think it will take a very big gap in technology to truly perfect it.

 

 

 

The difficulty of replicating something with technology isn't at all dependent on the product or importance of the thing you are trying to replicate, that is completely irrelevant. If you are trying to replicate a piece of gum that also tells your future when chewing it, and it still has the physical complexity equivalent to a normal piece of gum, it will be no harder to replicate than a piece of Double-Bubble.