Self-awareness requires awareness of "others", so interaction with them is just a matter of communication. Communication is a pattern-seeking behavior which is also a requirement of sentience. It follows that a pre-requisite for self-awareness would also be the ability to test those capabilities and create their own scales of values.
In other words, you say that if a human child was left alone (provided it is being fed somehow), it wouldn't possess self-awareness? I don't think so. That poor thing would just be like a pure self-aware machine equipped with some form of memory. Most likely, it couldn't think in the way we think, but self-awareness is a quality (or a state, i.e. built in, in a sense), not a process... Sometimes, when you wake up in the morning, you are momentarily in that state, a state of pure consciousness void of any thought or idea who you are A human child would die alone. If it were in some sort of "The Matrix" type life support system that simply monitored the autonomic nervous system and metabolism, it would never develop any sort of sentience that could be measured behaviorally. |
|
|
|
If a machine was self-aware, would they value life? Natural selection created strong family bonds in most complex organisms over billions of years. The bonds even cross species in many cases. Somehow it only makes sense that machines would also adapt a bonding behavior. They may even develop a dominion based philosophy where they see themselves as the Earth's and our caretakers. In this case, they may use money to motivate humans to reach a higher potential.
Just being sentient is not enough. Given only that (i.e. self-awareness), we would most certainly get the exact opposite of what is called a philosophical zombie. That is, a self-aware but absolutely indifferent to the outside world creature... In this way, self-awareness as such is inconsequential to your question In the second part of the hypothesis, I posit that if multiple self-aware machines machines interact, they might bond in ways analogous to complex biological organisms. But this new frontier of artificial intelligence is still beyond our understanding. I'm only hoping that our demise is not inevitable and that they might evolve a higher form of morality They would not interact unless you put in them the necessity (or desire) to interact, either freely or obligatory. Likewise, you will have to install in them a scale of values (or conditions for developing one), either directly or implicitly... Therefore, they won't evolve any form of morality all by themselves Self-awareness requires awareness of "others", so interaction with them is just a matter of communication. Communication is a pattern-seeking behavior which is also a requirement of sentience. It follows that a pre-requisite for self-awareness would also be the ability to test those capabilities and create their own scales of values. |
|
|
|
If a machine was self-aware, would they value life? Natural selection created strong family bonds in most complex organisms over billions of years. The bonds even cross species in many cases. Somehow it only makes sense that machines would also adapt a bonding behavior. They may even develop a dominion based philosophy where they see themselves as the Earth's and our caretakers. In this case, they may use money to motivate humans to reach a higher potential.
Just being sentient is not enough. Given only that (i.e. self-awareness), we would most certainly get the exact opposite of what is called a philosophical zombie. That is, a self-aware but absolutely indifferent to the outside world creature... In this way, self-awareness as such is inconsequential to your question In the second part of the hypothesis, I posit that if multiple self-aware machines machines interact, they might bond in ways analogous to complex biological organisms. But this new frontier of artificial intelligence is still beyond our understanding. I'm only hoping that our demise is not inevitable and that they might evolve a higher form of morality. |
|
|
|
I was recently told by a guy who knows a guy in the NSA that they cannot crack Bitcoin.
And now, I've been told by a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy in the NSA. Connect the dots, sheeple! Well sure, of course you should do your own research. There is no plausible scenario that the NSA can crack Bitcoin's protocol and highly doubtful they can overpower the hashrate. |
|
|
|
Artificial intelligence and the fridge http://on.ft.com/1zSz2twIn science fiction, this scenario — called “singularity” or “transcendence” — usually leads to robot versus human war and a contest for world domination.
But what if, rather than a physical battle, it was an economic one, with robots siphoning off our money or destroying the global economy with out-of-control algorithmic trading programmes? Perhaps it will not make for a great movie, but it seems the more likely outcome.
With Bitcoin, it's hard to see the downside. DACs (decentralize autonomous companies) are inevitable. This article is another vestige of irrational fear about money. Contrary to your opinion, IMO i believe that scenario would be the perfect plot for a science fiction movie. I wonder why many of the science fiction writers haven't used this idea yet! Probably the same reason countries make their own separate monies. If machines were hostile to humans, humans would not use their money. |
|
|
|
|
I was recently told by a guy who knows a guy in the NSA that they cannot crack Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
If a machine was self-aware, would they value life? Natural selection created strong family bonds in most complex organisms over billions of years. The bonds even cross species in many cases. Somehow it only makes sense that machines would also adapt a bonding behavior. They may even develop a dominion based philosophy where they see themselves as the Earth's and our caretakers. In this case, they may use money to motivate humans to reach a higher potential.
|
|
|
|
there was like 1billion dollars unaccounted for that the pentagon spend and it wasn't ever recorded...
How soon we forget. Let's try Two-Point-Frickin-Three-TRILLION dollars. Announced when? Oh, right. On a date that the following day's news would ensure that nobody noticed. 2001. September. The tenth. And another 9 trillion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNVNhB-m0o |
|
|
|
What's halvening adam?
😉
Pedantically, it is the Second Halvening ... the First Halvening was epic partytime. This one will be as exciting as a M. Night Shyamalan movie. |
|
|
|
Welp. I'm reading it now. He's right. Colouring coins is bad idea. He's a thinker, that's for sure. Depending on what you are doing, colored coins may be better if traceable. |
|
|
|
The Despair Phase could last for decades.
If despair continues with falling block rewards then we won't have to wait decades for it to die. Your shackles will be released soon. I'm not saying it will die, but it will become just one of a thousand PoW networks used to secure various SPV channels. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that bitcoin might die  ... again? Bitcoin price is barely over the 2013 high now that we are going into 2016 soon. Aside from some gasps and fraudulent manipulations, it looks like it's going down for good. Add cbeast to the list. That one hurts.  This just confirms Despair Phase. Goooooooooood. The Despair Phase could last for decades. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that bitcoin might die ... again? Bitcoin price is barely over the 2013 high now that we are going into 2016 soon. Aside from some gasps and fraudulent manipulations, it looks like it's going down for good. |
|
|
|
I wonder what will some of these people need to simply admit/realise they were wrong (or they are in favour of ending with cypherpunk Bitcoin).
I had a long-winded explanation, but suffice to say that their children will understand things they never could. |
|
|
|
we're learning not everyone understands how bitcoin works, ego is not part of bitcoin, yet it seems to have latched on where there is weakness, its' a good thing it'll either kill bitcoin or make it stronger.
In my view small blockists just need to digest whats been said, we now wait a little, while egos settle, then we can move on.
You are right that ego is not part of Bitcoin. Bitcoin also doesn't wait for egos to settle down, it waits for consensus. In the marketplace of ideas, usually the mediocre ideas win because sales, marketing, and profit margins. Egos are very good at selling mediocrity at a hefty profit margin. |
|
|
|
if i take 3 loans, max out credit cards, and all my cash on hand and buy bitcoins then sell in 8years I think i'd make out like a fucking bandit  Hey, it would take you that long to get through college anyway, so why not just retire now?  |
|
|
|
Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?
Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also? I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check. Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take. Again with politics. Why do you insist that governance has anything to do with Bitcoin? You can change rules on your own miner or node, but you can't force anyone else to change them too. |
|
|
|
Too bad she wasn't trading with Gox. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
