By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How much is a human worth?

Tagged games:

 

Are humans invaluable?

Yes 35 47.95%
 
No 21 28.77%
 
For the moment, yes 4 5.48%
 
See results 13 17.81%
 
Total:73
Sal.Paradise on 10 March 2012
snakenobi said:
Sal.Paradise said:
snakenobi said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
snakenobi said:

 



 

you can't create a computer twice.

I don't know what's going on in the rest of this thread, but man. Quantum computing. Look it up. It deviates from the classical Turing model quite significantly. 


for a computer to be free thinker.

 

it need to feel and perceive the different emotions out there.

if we create a cyborg.it will not feel these emotions freely but by the limit set by humans.

 

Also evolution is very necessary for a species,a computer just cannot do that.For example look at Mongolian people,they are very spiritual compared to caucasian which are more concentrated on material compared to negroids who are more free in nature

this has come by natural process,we cannot replicate it as we cannot even think what next evolutionary steps may bring

Oh, we're talking about AI. Didn't realise. I'm not really informed on that subject, can't contribute anything there. 



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 10 March 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
snakenobi said:

that link is for people like who don't know much about what they talk about and have no understanding

 

jumping up and but start jumping when they see a headline or a little article

 

linking the article shows you don't know much about it,jst believing other on it.if you understood it then you be abvle to explain how your story is true but you can't .

 

eanyways fuckoff ik don't have more time to waste on to you otherwise i will also become stupid


I used that link because you wouldn't believe me, not because of lack of understanding. If even a professor can't convince you then you must be the definition of stubborn itself.

With all due respect, I think the point here is that a computer is essentially a device that can crunch numbers using a pre-determined logic and nothing more. It's that fundamental structure of computing that prevents it from being sentient.

That's not to say we could never create a sentient machine, we could in the future. But said machine would likely be so far removed from the definition of a computer that it would not even bare that name.

It would be like calling an electric heater a "candle".



phinch1 on 10 March 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwmR86YioOk


stephen fry explains it all



sethnintendo on 10 March 2012
highwaystar101 said:

Depends in what form. I mean, humans contain a lot of carbon. If you sell that carbon in its raw state, then a few pennies; but if you place the carbon under immense pressure with a seed then you can sell it as a diamond for a few thousand pounds.

Am I being too literal here?

http://www.lifegem.com/



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 10 March 2012
highwaystar101 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


I used that link because you wouldn't believe me, not because of lack of understanding. If even a professor can't convince you then you must be the definition of stubborn itself.

With all due respect, I think the point here is that a computer is essentially a device that can crunch numbers using a pre-determined logic and nothing more. It's that fundamental structure of computing that prevents it from being sentient.

That's not to say we could never create a sentient machine, we could in the future. But said machine would likely be so far removed from the definition of a computer that it would not even bare that name.

It would be like calling an electric heater a "candle".


I'm not sure if you followed the whole discussion, but I pretty much mentioned that earlier saying "We do not only improve the performance of our cars, we also invent planes."

But yeah, I still completely agree. Calling a self-conscious computer a "computer" would be disparaging.



Around the Network
Marks on 11 March 2012

Haha hell no, humans are just animals like anything else. The only difference between us and apes is we're smarter.

There are like 7 billion of us on the planet, so I don't really think we're that valuable. Who would even notice if a couple billion got wiped away overnight?



The Fury on 12 March 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
The Fury said:
Human's have a soul, this is the priceless part, even if you don't believe in said entity. The human life and existence is priceless. Human life is fragile and can be lost by the smallest of things.

What you described as potentially becoming more valuable is AI recreating life and a soul, or synthetics representing life. This is not real, it's pretend, a bunch of protocols or electronic signals telling itself it is alive, not knowing to begin with. It hasn't learned and developed as life should to exist.



AI in fiction is the best example. Joss Whedon's piss poor attempted in his second story in Astonishing X-men is an example, A pure AI gained intelligence (from where this is unexplained, he's that great a writer) and he tries and pass it off like this 'life' is as important as any of the X-men. In the end it still an AI, artificial life.


Even though I don't believe in souls existence, I'll try to debate on your level. If someone was to clone any human being (sheeps can already be cloned, humans will be eventually), would that human don't have a soul and therefore be less valuable than an animal?

Late replies are great no? I don't believe souls exist either. But even the electronic signals within us allow us to think and feel. This existance is still priceless.

Modern cloning is still based on nature. They take a egg of the species being cloned and put the DNA of the cloned species within it, we as a race have no yet worked out how to create life from scratch, without nature's aid. A clone is still human as it comes from a human before (the sheep was still a sheep). Creating existance out of complete scientific progress or AI would be different to this. For many it might be hard to consider how a 'life' created from nothing can technically be real.



Hmm, pie.