User Controls
All of you, right now!
-
2017-07-17 at 2 AM UTCArguing with you is like the time I tried talking about autonomous cars with some guy while we were strolling through goodwill.
He got really arrogant and told me in such a smug tone that there wouldn't be self-driving cars in our lifetime, I corrected him and said it would only be a few years (not counting commercialization).
This was back in 2013 or 2014, in August Tesla are going to testrun one of their autonomous cars from coast to coast ... -
2017-07-17 at 2:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume I have been following Deepmind since the first match against Lee Sedol was livestreamed.
lmao. how does kurzweil's cock taste? do you dream about getting impregnated by him?
"ah, and if you think that mind-uploading is gonna happen in the next 30 years then you don't know jack shit about neuroscience as well. now please i beg you to kill yourself"
It's going to happen sooner than 30 years. -
2017-07-17 at 2:02 AM UTC
-
2017-07-17 at 2:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume Arguing with you is like the time I tried talking about autonomous cars with some guy while we were strolling through goodwill.
> comparing mind uploading to self-driving cars
He got really arrogant and told me in such a smug tone that there wouldn't be self-driving cars in our lifetime, I corrected him and said it would only be a few years (not counting commercialization).
This was back in 2013 or 2014, in August Tesla are going to testrun one of their autonomous cars from coast to coast …
t. someone who doesn't know shit about brainmapping -
2017-07-17 at 2:08 AM UTC
-
2017-07-17 at 2:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by antinatalism 1) this is not what he said, though. he said that he expected all those things to be already fully operational and even mainstream in the early 2000s-2010s. guess what, it didn't happen.
2) by your fallacious logic, AI\computers existed since the early 1800s because charles babbage designed its analytical engine almost two centuries ago. see? ain't that easy, you brainlet subhuman.
> inb4 muh moore's law
> inb4 muh law of accelerating returns
if you're interested in AI, keep up with the latest development from deepmind, if you're interested in robotics, check out boston dynamics. lurk moar about brainmapping projects, dive into the academic literature instead of dogshit layman junk-literature for the normgroids and read books from household names like peter norvig etc.
ah, and if you think that mind-uploading is gonna happen in the next 30 years then you don't know jack shit about neuroscience as well. now please i beg you to kill yourself
Damn, you an angry nigga! -
2017-07-17 at 2:11 AM UTC
-
2017-07-17 at 2:58 AM UTCNot to mention there was just recently a successful experiment where people transferred digital information from a computer to the brain.
Keep in mind (and I keep saying this) technological progress is advancing at an exponential rate so it won't take as long to go from that to FIVR as it did for us to make it this far in the first place.
Already there are people who can purchase a BCI device for use at home, within five or so years that tech will evolve to become headbands that you wear to control digital interfaces (such as in AR and VR).
But thanks to antinatalism for the laughs, I get a sense of pleasure from seeing arrogant morons like that proven wrong. -
2017-07-17 at 3:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume Not to mention there was just recently a successful experiment where people transferred digital information from a computer to the brain.
To be able to transfer memories and consciousness between mediums you would need a perfect 1:1 copy - at the moment that's almost impossible even with flash memory; keeping data stored precisely relies heavily on multiple levels of redundancy and error correction... That's not even taking into account the fact that we still know very little of how data is 'stored' in the brain - even once we're able to properly and completely understand the roles of neurons and synapses that comprise 'consciousness', we would need a way to read them directly without influencing them or taking so long that data changes before the process is complete... We'd then need to work out a way to accurately convert the analogue data to digital... And that's assuming that a person's consciousness is stored completely in the brain.
I have to agree, I don't see it happening anytime soon. -
2017-07-17 at 3:35 AM UTCI've been incredibly into transhumanism for a long while. I remember way back in the day I used to watch my dad play Diablo 2 and Deus Ex for hours. I thought the guy augmenting his body was the tightest shit. I remember making a game at recess in primary school based on what I watched. No one got what I was talking about but we had a blast pretending to be cyborgs.
Those were very formative years for me. To this day I still have an unhealthy fixation on augmentation and necromancy -
2017-07-17 at 6:33 AM UTC
-
2017-07-17 at 9:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by DocFoster I've been incredibly into transhumanism for a long while. I remember way back in the day I used to watch my dad play Diablo 2 and Deus Ex for hours. I thought the guy augmenting his body was the tightest shit. I remember making a game at recess in primary school based on what I watched. No one got what I was talking about but we had a blast pretending to be cyborgs.
Those were very formative years for me. To this day I still have an unhealthy fixation on augmentation and necromancy
I have been into technology and futurism my entire life.
My grandma owned one of those 90s esque VHS camcorders that you had to rest on your shoulder, her filming me during my infancy instilled a deep passion for tech.
Getting into consoles at 5 was a major transitioning point, I thought it was so amazing that you could control what was happening on a tv, then around 1997 - 1998 I was at a friend's house who had a PS1, trying it out for the first time transformed me and ever since I have been a Playstation fan.
I have been a hikikomori my entire life, never really interacted with people outside of family and even then my family were assholes and I could never have a deep conversation with them.
So I grew up on the internet, TOTSE was a very defining website for me I used to go there around 2002 - 2005.
My eyes have been glued to a screen nonstop all day my entire life ... Hey I still have pretty good vision considering. -
2017-07-17 at 9:46 AM UTCEven when I'm in full-immersion VR I'll still be living pretty much the same way
I have this island mansion mapped out in my mind, complete with a huuuge library where I'll keep all my albums, txt files, pdfs, pictures, video files etc except they'll be displayed as actual physical objects and I'll spend decades and centuries going through everything. -
2017-07-17 at 10:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume I have been into technology and futurism my entire life.
My grandma owned one of those 90s esque VHS camcorders that you had to rest on your shoulder, her filming me during my infancy instilled a deep passion for tech.
Getting into consoles at 5 was a major transitioning point, I thought it was so amazing that you could control what was happening on a tv, then around 1997 - 1998 I was at a friend's house who had a PS1, trying it out for the first time transformed me and ever since I have been a Playstation fan.
I have been a hikikomori my entire life, never really interacted with people outside of family and even then my family were assholes and I could never have a deep conversation with them.
So I grew up on the internet, TOTSE was a very defining website for me I used to go there around 2002 - 2005.
My eyes have been glued to a screen nonstop all day my entire life … Hey I still have pretty good vision considering.
you've been into futurism your entire life and yet the best piece of literature you can suggest about it is a kurzweil's book. this is an original way of admitting that you've wasted your whole existence, kudos -
2017-07-17 at 11:13 AM UTCYes, because I must follow path x y and z in order to appease people like yourself
It's not like that information isn't already available on all the blogs and articles I have read over the years. -
2017-07-17 at 3:59 PM UTCFIGHT THE MACHINE!
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.
121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.
123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
129 Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
Post last edited by Open Your Mind at 2017-07-17T16:02:29.561776+00:00 -
2017-07-17 at 4:16 PM UTC151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result fo the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure itw own survival, a new watershed in human history will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system. [27]
152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28] Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.
153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.
154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal and suppose some sort of vaccine can remove this trait. [29] Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.
155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.
156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society's most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is "optional": No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.
157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents. -
2017-07-17 at 4:29 PM UTCThe system has already caused, and is continuing to cause , immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate abut what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
170. "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempt to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so that the present one. For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will lead to other new problems for society far more rapidly that it has been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long difficult period of trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their Brave New World (if they ever do). In the meantime there will be great suffering. So it is not all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape. -
2017-07-17 at 4:33 PM UTC^ cool post I'll make sure to read l8r (I might go2sleep)
also
http://www.kurzweilai.net/projecting-a-visual-image-directly-into-the-brain-bypassing-the-eyes -
2017-07-17 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Hikikomori-Yume Yes, because I must follow path x y and z in order to appease people like yourself
> worships kurzweil's mainstream trash
It's not like that information isn't already available on all the blogs and articles I have read over the years.
> calls other people sheep
cognitive dissonance 11/10
