Billionaires convinced we live in Matrix... Fund scientists to break us out...

[matthew1977]

Billionaires convinced we live in Matrix... Fund scientists to break us out... Tech billionaires convinced we live in the Matrix are secretly funding scientists to help break us out of it via Drudge Report on Droid - Android Apps on Google Play #drudgeondroid

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[TheBitterOne]

Just more transhumanist nonsense.

I honestly started reading this and then glanced up at the URL to check it wasn't from The Onion.

 

[Wade]

I didn't read it but if I was a billionaire I sure as hell wouldn't question it, I would just accept it. Why rock the boat ?

 

[TheBitterOne]

I didn't read it but if I was a billionaire I sure as hell wouldn't question it, I would just accept it. Why rock the boat ?

Just another clueless idiot with more money than soul or brains...

Mr Altman seemed to echo that fear and told the New Yorker that he was concerned about the way that the devices that surround us might lead to the extinction of all consciousness in the universe. He spoke about how the best scenario for dealing with that is a “merge” – when our brains and computers become one, perhaps by having our brains uploaded into the cloud.

“These phones already control us,” he said. “The merge has begun – and a merge is our best scenario. Any version without a merge will have conflict: we enslave the A.I. or it enslaves us.

“The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into the cloud. I’d love that. We need to level up humans, because our descendants will either conquer the galaxy or extinguish consciousness in the universe forever. What a time to be alive!”'

 

[Randall]

Just another clueless idiot with more money than soul or brains...

This thread was obviously started as more click-bait, but I hope you're not referring to Elon Musk because he's one of the most progressive business people in the world today. Also, before you dismiss the idea that our reality might be a generated construct of some kind, you might want to read what one of the brightest minds out there Nick Bostrom thinks about it: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

 

[matthew1977]

This thread was obviously started as more click-bait, but I hope you're not referring to Elon Musk because he's one of the most progressive business people in the world today. Also, before you dismiss the idea that our reality might be a generated construct of some kind, you might want to read what one of the brightest minds out there Nick Bostrom thinks about it: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

Enough with the "click-bait" jargon. ALL headlines are click bait. Yet that DOESN'T mean we can't share news threads of a shared interest. Please don't condem the privilege of sharing information.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Red]

The article in which this originated appeared in the New Yorker and was a profile/interview of Sam Altman of Y Combinator. The assertion was an aside by the author without any corroborating evidence.

Sam Altman’s Manifest Destiny

 

[Randall]

Enough with the "click-bait" jargon. ALL headlines are click bait. Yet that DOESN'T mean we can't share news threads of a shared interest. Please don't condem the privilege of sharing information.

See: Clickbait - Clickbait - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you don't want a link to be labeled clickbait then avoid making posts that:

1. are aimed at generating online advertising revenue, especially at the expense of quality or accuracy,
2. rely on sensationalist headlines or eye-catching thumbnail pictures to attract click-throughs
3. encourage forwarding of the material over online social networks.
4. exploit the "curiosity gap", providing just enough information to make the reader curious, but not enough to satisfy their curiosity without clicking through to the linked content.
5. are derivative of yellow journalism, which presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines that include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

Or at least if you do, do it well. Yours promotes the Independent, Google Play and Samsung more than providing any useful information. Grant-it, it did work. I clicked the link anyway ... gullible me ... lol.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Everybody needs a hobby.

 

[Red]

The most useful thing I learned from this thread is that ufology gets really, really annoyed with clickbait.

 

[Randall]

The most useful thing I learned from this thread is that ufology gets really, really annoyed with clickbait.

Useful? Uh oh ... you've discovered a new way to torment me on the Internet ... LOL

Here's the best possible example I could come up with on short notice:

Website claims that you can do anything ! Click here to find out more.

 

[TheBitterOne]

Just another clueless idiot with more money than brains...

This thread was obviously started as more click-bait, but I hope you're not referring to Elon Musk because he's one of the most progressive business people in the world today. Also, before you dismiss the idea that our reality might be a generated construct of some kind, you might want to read what one of the brightest minds out there Nick Bostrom thinks about it: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

I'm not dismissing the idea at all; on the contrary, it is such a fundamental tenet of so many spiritual traditions down through the ages that it seems idiotic when it is presented as some kind of 'breakthrough of insight' by these Silicone Valley assclowns who are only using it to push their silly, doomed transhumanist agenda.

 

[Randall]

I'm not dismissing the idea at all; on the contrary, it is such a fundamental tenet of so many spiritual traditions down through the ages that it seems idiotic when it is presented as some kind of 'breakthrough of insight' by these Silicone Valley assclowns who are only using it to push their silly, doomed transhumanist agenda.

I think transhumanism is actually quite interesting. What part of it do you have a problem with?

 

[Red]

Useful? Uh oh ... you've discovered a new way to torment me on the Internet ... LOL

Yeah, like that was difficult.

Website claims that you can do anything ! Click here to find out more.

That was funny!

 

[TheBitterOne]

I think transhumanism is actually quite interesting. What part of it do you have a problem with?

Fundamentally, it is a rejection or hatred of human nature.

What do you find interesting about it?

Science has no evidence that consciousness is even located in the brain, so the idea that it might one day soon be possible to 'upload your brain' into a cyber-cloud and that that might actually mean something is just ridiculous.

 

[Randall]

Fundamentally, it is a rejection or hatred of human nature.

I don't think that's accurate at all, starting with what it says transhumanism is here:

"Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of using such technologies. The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the natural condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings." - Wikipedia​

When you speak of human nature, I tend to think a major facet is our inventiveness. We try to make improvements on things, including ourselves, that will lead to longer happier more productive lives, and this seems to be the fundamental goal of transhumanism, which IMO isn't a rejection of human nature at all, but evolution. Unfortunately there are people who don't believe in evolution and see this as something that should be rejected on religious grounds.

What do you find interesting about it?

I find the whole thing interesting, from the sci-fi roots to the philosophy, to the technology.

Science has no evidence that consciousness is even located in the brain

Science has plenty of evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain. In fact from a scientific perspective, it's virtually unanimous. What science hasn't figured out yet is how the brain does it and whether or not it can be faithfully replicated by technology more efficient, resilient, and lasting than the brain.

... so the idea that it might one day soon be possible to 'upload your brain' into a cyber-cloud and that that might actually mean something is just ridiculous.

I agree that the uploading of consciousness idea is oversimplified. There are philosophical considerations that strongly suggest that it simply cannot be done. But it seems reasonable to suggest that the technology to try it will eventually become a reality, maybe by the end of the century. So maybe it's not as ridiculous an idea as you might think.

 

[TheBitterOne]

I don't think that's accurate at all, starting with what it says transhumanism is here:

"Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of using such technologies. The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the natural condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings." - Wikipedia​

When you speak of human nature, I tend to think a major facet is our inventiveness. We try to make improvements on things, including ourselves, that will lead to longer happier more productive lives, and this seems to be the fundamental goal of transhumanism, which IMO isn't a rejection of human nature at all, but evolution. Unfortunately there are people who don't believe in evolution and see this as something that should be rejected on religious grounds.

I find the whole thing interesting, from the sci-fi roots to the philosophy, to the technology.

Science has plenty of evidence that consciousness is a product of the brain. In fact from a scientific perspective, it's virtually unanimous. What science hasn't figured out yet is how the brain does it and whether or not it can be faithfully replicated by technology more efficient, resilient, and lasting than the brain.

I agree that the uploading of consciousness idea is oversimplified. There are philosophical considerations that strongly suggest that it simply cannot be done. But it seems reasonable to suggest that the technology to try it will eventually become a reality, maybe by the end of the century. So maybe it's not as ridiculous an idea as you might think.

There's ZERO evidence that consciousness is located in the brain.

"human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings"

- How is this not a rejection or hatred of human nature?

Please don't start up on the evolution thing again; not everybody who understands the simple point that evolution is only a theory are fundamentalist religious nutjobs.

 

[Randall]

There's ZERO evidence that consciousness is located in the brain.

Perhaps you have the concept of evidence confused with the concept of proof, the former being objective, the latter being subjective. You are entitled to your opinion that so far as you're concerned, there is no proof that consciousness is brain based, however if you think there's no evidence, then you're either misinformed or in a state of denial. If you're just misinformed, I suggest you start here: Consciousness and the Thalamocortical Loop

Please don't start up on the evolution thing again; not everybody who understands the simple point that evolution is only a theory are fundamentalist religious nutjobs.

Again? I think this is the first time in ages that I've mentioned evolution in the context of transhumanism. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

"human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings" - How is this not a rejection or hatred of human nature?

First of all it's not hatred, so we can simply remove that from the suggestion altogether. Secondly the "nature" of human beings can be thought of in different ways. Sure it can be thought of in terms of biology, as in; the nature of human beings is biological, in which case preferring technology to biology ( if they can truly be differentiated ) might be considered a form of rejection. However human nature can also be thought of in more behavioral or psychological terms or a combination of such terms that add up to the same thing as our "spiritual" nature ( not to be confused with the idea of apparitions or ghosts ).

 

[TheBitterOne]

Perhaps you have the concept of evidence confused with the concept of proof, the former being objective, the latter being subjective. You are entitled to your opinion that so far as you're concerned, there is no proof that consciousness is brain based, however if you think there's no evidence, then you're either misinformed or in a state of denial. If you're just misinformed, I suggest you start here: Consciousness and the Thalamocortical Loop

Apologies - yes, I meant 'proof'.

Again? I think this is the first time in ages that I've mentioned evolution in the context of transhumanism. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

Arguing on another thread about evolution, thought you were about to pile on there as well!

First of all it's not hatred, so we can simply remove that from the suggestion altogether. Secondly the "nature" of human beings can be thought of in different ways. Sure it can be thought of in terms of biology, as in; the nature of human beings is biological, in which case preferring technology to biology ( if they can truly be differentiated ) might be considered a form of rejection. However human nature can also be thought of in more behavioral or psychological terms or a combination of such terms that add up to the same thing as our "spiritual" nature ( not to be confused with the idea of apparitions or ghosts ).

The desire to 'transform into a different being' by technological means suggests a rejection or denial of the possibility that there is any inherent transcendental essence to human nature.

We could prattle on about this all day but the bottom line is the movement is driven by atheist materialists terrified of death.

 

[Randall]

Apologies - yes, I meant 'proof'.

NP. People get those two mixed up fairly often.

Arguing on another thread about evolution, thought you were about to pile on there as well!

I need to do less arguing and more getting stuff done around the house Maybe another day. But I would say that in a general sense, it seems fairly obvious from the evidence that the universe and many of the things in it have evolved considerably over the last 13 + billion years.

The desire to 'transform into a different being' by technological means suggests a rejection or denial of the possibility that there is any inherent transcendental essence to human nature.

Transcendental essence? Literally? Like apparitions and ghosts? Or what do you mean exactly?

We could prattle on about this all day but the bottom line is the movement is driven by atheist materialists terrified of death.

Hmm. I think we could probably discard the "terrified" angle and look at it as an effort to extend life in a verifiable manner as opposed to having some sort of faith in religion or superstition.