• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The First Artificial Humanoid Life Form: Can Humans Accept It ?

AlienView

"Stargate Explorer"
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
291
Location
Cyberspace
NOTE: I do not wish to debate whether it is possible, now or in the future, to create an intelligent, conscious, and fully functional Humanoid life form, what is called an android - For the sake of this post, it is considered inevitable - If you don't believe this is possible please don't respond.

Some intelligent people still don't believe it is possible - A few hundred years ago you could have debated
with these people on flying through the air with airplanes or transmitting speech and images at the speed
of light through what used to be called the ether and they would have considered you crazy.

But people like me are what I call 'Sciencefictionalist' - We cater to dreams of a conceivable, even if not
provable, future - Until proven to be impossible, it is possible.

Specifically, and for today's timeline, I want to consider what it would mean to have a fully conscious
and intelligent artificial and Human like life form - Could most Humans accept the existence of
a life form that is not biological, a life form that does not need to ingest, digest, and excrete other
biological life forms to survive?

Or would Man consider this life form superior to him and try to to suppress it before it
showed that maybe it was superior to him?

This is not pure science fiction - Science is advancing to what some call 'the Singularity', a point
where computer intelligence exceeds Man's

Some surveys have already concluded that Man could not accept Alien beings, and would react poorly
to the exposure of their existence.

But how would Man react to a new artificial life form that he created
- A life form that may one day replace him ???
 
To me, the pivotal differentiator that would ensure acceptance as a peer entity would be the indisputable presence of consciousness.

Setting-aside the circular arguments regarding the undefinability of this state within biological humanity itself (at least for now) surely the only truly-relevant proxy for this (being exhibited by an android construct) is the inarguable presence of novel thought and reported perspectives from abstract conceptualisation.

The ability to demonstrate original insightful analysis, at a level far-removed from mere mechanistic regurgitation or pseudo-random toybox philosophising, is the defining difference between animals and primates. The absence/presence of this key rubric is undoubtedly what sets the bar as to what is a human, rather than just what looks and play-acts like a human.

No: I'm not reframing the Turing Test, I'm saying that humans would respect and accept synthetic humans if they can be said to genuinely-contribute to defining/analysing/untangling a universe that we would then both inhabit.

Equality as a function of contribution. Peership via the inescapable projection of capability.

Just as people ultimately judge other current bipedal contributors.
 
To me, the pivotal differentiator that would ensure acceptance as a peer entity would be the indisputable presence of consciousness.

Setting-aside the circular arguments regarding the undefinability of this state within biological humanity...

I think there's more to it that.

Consciousness does not seem to be a binary phenomenon whereby a brain possesses (or is capable of) it or is not. The higher functioning mammals, for instance, certainly have it to degree, but probably not as much as humans, yet we tend to be rather generous when it comes to animals, especially so when the resemble us in key physiological respects.

In contrast, humanity seems to have the opposite bias when judging how life-like and 'human-like' machines are. I'm thinking here of the so-called uncanny valley whereby inauthentic deviation from natural human action/appearance not only fails to fool us but actual revolts.

This leads me to think that a synthetic human would have an even higher hurdle to clear for acceptance. A great mass of humanity cannot tolerate humans with trivial physiological differences let alone mental ones, and tribalism is a mindset that has been with us far longer than civilisation. When one considers the potential advantages a synthetic human might hold over a biolgical one (lifespan being but one), I think it is likely that rivalry and distrust would come into play.

Ermintruder mentions the ability to display insight etc. as being crucial, but I think this is too stringent. We accept the inexperienced and non-comprehending infant as a potential peer and the mentally disabled and psychologically incapacitated as unfortunate comrades, so I'm not sure that mental depth is part of the answer. And in this era of crowd-sourcing information with vast databases of seemingly-novel potential responses to be drawn upon, who wouldn't be suspicious of plagiarised 'human' thought?

Now, if nobody knew the synthetic human was synthetic, then we would have a fascinating landscape.
 
Addendum.

I'm not convinced it would be anything other that very difficult for humans to accept synthetic lifeforms as peers. But if they credibly displayed actions that reliably matched those generated by the human mental states of compassion, love, pity, charity, hope etc., they'd have a good chance of gaining acceptance regardless of whether such behaviour is mentally 'hollow'--the beetle in the box would be assumed to exist.
 
No: I'm not reframing the Turing Test, I'm saying that humans would respect and accept synthetic humans if they can be said to genuinely-contribute to defining/analysing/untangling a universe that we would then both inhabit.

I'm not convinced it would be anything other that very difficult for humans to accept synthetic lifeforms as peers. But if they credibly display actions which would reliably match those generated by the human mental states of compassion, love, pity, charity, hope etc., they have a good chance of gaining acceptance regardless of whether such behaviour is mentally 'hollow'--the beetle in the box will be assumed to exist.

Agreed - But the real problem comes in when Man realizes he may have out done himself
- He may have created his superior.

A joint UK, USA, Sweden sci-fi series 'Humans' is now in its third year and is recommended for
all who are interested in this subject - As it does explore potential conflicts between
Human vs. Android that may develop - Including the development of consciousness in what
is called 'Synths' and how some of them begin to see themselves as the new master
race and want dominance.

How could we prevent this - Some, cynical about Man and his history, might even suggest
it is Evolution playing out - What law says Evolution must maintain a biological matrix?

Machines have been following Man throughout his existence - And when one machine proves
superior we use it to replace the out of date version {ie. a car replacing a horse and buggy}

And if we find a superior android body can outlast, out perform, and ultimately out think Its
biological predecessors - would not some jump to the new life form? If you could live longer,
function better, almost never get sick and would die of boredom instead a slow creeping
old age - Would you accept yourself in this future form?

Of course many would reject this - They like 'Human feelings', love, sex, all that is touchy-feely
that makes for biological life.

But I'm dreaming well into a potential future where, as some artificial limbs of today can acttally
out perform natural biological limbs - The superior android will posses superiority over biological life
- As far is the touchy-feely sensation of being biological - Maybe, and eventually, it will be possible
to duplicate this. - And as far as Human sexuality goes, I see the 'sexbot' industry as being foruners
in the development of future androids - Sex and money {as well as science} will push the development of
future androids.

Where am I going with this? - Instead of creating a competing life form for Humans of today
- Maybe its time for Man to evolve into a higher and superior lifeform?

Maybe we should make sure that 'all' synthetic Humans be backed by an original natural
Human to begin with ?
 
Last edited:
It is happening now:

"Russian billionaire says his initiative will transfer a human mind into a robot within 30 years"

"It was reported last year that an Australian startup company wanted to help people transfer their consciousness into artificial bodies so they might live forever. Most of Humai’s ambitions relied on scientific breakthroughs being made in the near future, but now a Russian billionaire is using his fortune to help make this dream a reality.

35-year-old Dmitry Itskov, the man behind Moscow-based media company New Media Stars, founded the ‘2045 Initiative’ in 2011. Its ultimate goal is to create technology that can transfer an individual's personality to a “more advanced, non-biological carrier.”

"Within the next 30 years, I am going to make sure that we can all live forever," Itskov said in recent BBC documentary ‘The Immortalist.’ "I'm 100% confident it will happen. Otherwise, I wouldn't have started it.”

The first part of the project is to create a robotic version of a human body that can be controlled by the brain, and is scheduled to be completed by 2020. This machine could be used to perform dangerous tasks without placing the remote operators in danger.

The final stage of the plan, the transfer of human consciousness into a holographic or robotic avatar, will hopefully take place in 2045 - as indicated by the initiative’s name. Itskov has reportedly already poured $1.43 billion into the project, which shows how much faith he has in the initiative........."

See whole article here:
https://www.techspot.com/news/64142-russian-initiative-transfer-human-mind-robot.html


2016-03-17-image-5.png




"“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”
Arthur C. Clarke
 
Tangentially, the term synthetic seems to be a bit misplaced. Synthetic has always seemed to me a derogatory term for whatever - the polyester shirt, the manmade Dam holding back a bunch of water etc etc. It is for me a term that derives from an outdated paradigm of looking at anything that isn't 'of nature', which is of course, ridiculous. Everything is natural when you give it a bit of thought. Even nuclear waste. It's us who's dandled with the chemical compounds, but that doesn't make whatever it is un-natural, does it? It all comes from our planet and will all return to it when all's said and done. What denotes anything as synthetic or artificial or alien is all in our 20thC-dependent minds. Its out of date.

Also, whatever the emerging intelligent product becomes it will not be human either. We need pretty much a new vocabulary for this incumbent phase of the technical rejigging of our environment. I wonder if English is the best framework for that.
 
I agree that it certainly has that connotation, but the ultimate derivation seems to be from σῠ́νθεσῐς, a 'putting together', composition or combination. It's only when it reached the French in the form of synthétique that the suggestion of artificiality was introduced.
 
... Also, whatever the emerging intelligent product becomes it will not be human either. We need pretty much a new vocabulary for this incumbent phase of the technical rejigging of our environment. I wonder if English is the best framework for that.

The deepest such potential linguistic adaptation that comes to mind would be the re-organization of our pronouns to connote a bio-homo / synth-homo distinction alongside the two distinctions our current pronouns accommodate:

- Human ( and anthropomorphized things) versus non-human ('he' / 'she' versus 'it')
- Human / biological gender categorization ('he' versus 'she')

Neither of these two implicit distinctions are absolutely enforced in language use. For example, we don't blink (much ... ) at someone referring to a ship or beloved vehicle as 'she'. Whether we refer to a mammal as 'he' / 'she' versus 'it' depends on familiarity (e.g., cherished pet versus wild intruder).
 
Also, whatever the emerging intelligent product becomes it will not be human either
Remember what I said:
Where am I going with this? - Instead of creating a competing life form for Humans of today
- Maybe its time for Man to evolve into a higher and superior lifeform?

Maybe we should make sure that 'all' synthetic Humans be backed by an original natural
Human to begin with ?

Now the question is this - If I give you an android body and it has become possible, as the Russian billionaire Itskov is trying to do right now, for you to fully transfer essentially 'all' of your psyche into this machine, would you now not consider yourself to be 'Human' just because you no longer had a
biological body???

No your not the same anymore - but are you, or are you not a person, a 'Human' ???

At this stage in its history, maybe Evolution occurs in the mind first.
 
σῠ́νθεσῐς
Interesting. I wonder if that's the same term the old testament scholars used to explicate the bringing together of the first human - the Adam archetype - in Genesis when transcribing from the older Hebrew and Aramaic oral dialects. Certainly a fair bit would be lost in translation, but Greek was pretty useful for the task. I'll ask my Da to look into it as he's a theologian 50 years and has an extensive biblical exegetical background in Greek. My uncle has the same study background and would perhaps have some insights into it too.

It would be fun to explore these concepts through Sanskrit too - the vedic conceptualisation of humanity and the relationship of conscious perception to creation seems to me far more capable of framing this discussion than English. Any translators out there? The Indigenous Australian paradigm also provides fascinating ways of experiencing and grasping such matters - @MungomanII , do you have a point of view from their perspective? Do our Chinese members have any thoughts? Trad. Irish? Trad. Scandinavian? Would be great to get a meta-cultural collation of views on this important issue so we might perhaps avoid hitting that wall of semantic resistance English seems so often to throw up.

Good thread, AV. Thanks for raising it.
 
Now the question is this - If I give you an android body and it has become possible, as the Russian billionaire Itskov is trying to do right now, for you to fully transfer essentially 'all' of your psyche into this machine, would you now not consider yourself to be 'Human' just because you no longer had a
biological body???

No your not the same anymore - but are you, or are you not a person, a 'Human' ???

At this stage in its history, maybe Evolution occurs in the mind first.

This is the crucial philosophical question - DOES BIOLOGY DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN ?

In the futures more and more body parts {limbs} and organs {heart, liver, kidneys} will be replaced by mechanical devices when the biological origan fails - How many of you already wear glasses or have had the lenses of of your eyes changed with synthetic lenses to remove cataracts? - Does this make you feel less Human?

But we are now going into a radical new future where your entire body can be replaced
by a synthetic Humanoid form, an android form.

I want you to imagine that you live long enough and are coming to the end of your life because
of a disease - But the technology exists for us to upload/download you into a brand new fully
functional android - we can make it work - Would you accept?

You will be able to perceive most Human sensations, but may not have any hunger as you will no
longer require food - Your sensory and thought functions will remain but will not quite be the same
- though thinking abilities may be enhanced and your life span will be increased dramatically.

- ARE YOU READY ?
 
There are two different issues here, which I think even Ray Kurzweil gets confused over. The first is the probability that computers and robot technology will achieve a human-like level of complexity some time this century. It seems likely that the first computers with a similar processing capacity to the human brain will be developed somewhere between 2045 and 2060. I should note that the fact that computers in 2060 might be as complex as a human brain would not, in any way, imply that they would suddenly become intelligent and sentient; far from it. In fact we already have a global telecommunication system with a similar number of nodes to the human brain, but it isn't sentient by any stretch of the imagination.

Bear in mind as well that this hypothetical computer-as-complex-as-a-human-brain would, in 2060, be a very large object indeed, and you couldn't fit one into a humanoid robot (unless that robot were about a kilometre tall).

But the second, and more important consideration is the problem of uploading and simulating a human mind in a computer. At the moment our understanding of the way the brain works is very basic indeed, and we can't even simulate the connectome of a roundworm with only 302 neurons. The human brain has evolved to its current state over a period of four billion years, and I don't think we have a chance of decoding and replicating that state in a few decades. Even a very basic and crude human emulation won't be possible for at least a hundred years, and I'd guess that it will take a lot longer than that to get it right.

Note that I'm actually quite optimistic about this- by the time we finally can 'upload' a human consciousness, a few hundred years from now, we will have marvellously advanced and compact computers to upload them into, and very capable robotic bodies. A few hundred years is an eyeblink in geological time - we'll probably transition into wholly artificial bodies shortly after that, and the human race will disappear from the fossil record very abruptly. But don't expect uploads to become available in the lifetime of anyone living today, and don't expect the first computers-as-complex-as-a-human-brain to spontaneously become sentient and intelligent in 2060 (or any time soon after that).
 
Last edited:
... Now the question is this - If I give you an android body and it has become possible, as the Russian billionaire Itskov is trying to do right now, for you to fully transfer essentially 'all' of your psyche into this machine ...

(Cf. previous discussion in the Artificial Intelligence thread ... )

'Psyche' - there's another item one needs to add to the growing list of terms mind-upload / etc. fan-boys never tire of throwing around without any attention to grasping them in the first place ...

Waving one's hands in concert with a dancing swarm of ephemeral orbs doesn't count as juggling them.
 
... In the futures more and more body parts {limbs} and organs {heart, liver, kidneys} will be replaced by mechanical devices when the biological origan fails - How many of you already wear glasses or have had the lenses of of your eyes changed with synthetic lenses to remove cataracts? - Does this make you feel less Human?

But we are now going into a radical new future where your entire body can be replaced
by a synthetic Humanoid form, an android form. ...

Ah, yes ... The fallacious argument that a pseudo-mind-upload into a wholly synthetic humanoid shell (i.e., an android) is simply the most extreme or ultimate version of a cyborg:

http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter1/cyborgs.pdf

Androids and cyborgs are two distinct categories, and the latter (as the seminal / defining paper clearly states ... ) necessarily retains enough of the biological apparatus to serve as the controlling core for whatever technological augmentation has been integrated into, or slaved to, it.
 
Of course is whether you can upload a individual's mind and and consciousness. You may be one able to copy all information and patterns of interconnection that constitute a personality, but is the resultant mind in the machine the original or a simulation, and would the more self-aware or philosophical upload have a existential crisis as to whether they were the same person in a different body, or a copy, or an entirely new entity?
 
Bear in mind as well that this hypothetical computer-as-complex-as-a-human-brain would, in 2060, be a very large object indeed, and you couldn't fit one into a humanoid robot (unless that robot were about a kilometre tall).
Aren't we at the beginning of quantum computing? What will that be like in 2060?
 
Of course is whether you can upload a individual's mind and and consciousness. You may be one able to copy all information and patterns of interconnection that constitute a personality, but is the resultant mind in the machine the original or a simulation, and would the more self-aware or philosophical upload have a existential crisis as to whether they were the same person in a different body, or a copy, or an entirely new entity?
EXACTLY! - That is what I'm trying to sort out - Even though until it becomes feasible it is speculation.

But we can speculate - I say 'IF' the machine does what it is supposed to do, effectively mimic a
Human brain - We can adapt. - I just got new eyeglasses, and when I first put them on things did not
seem sharper, the technician said wear them for a day, and he was right - my vision now seems
considerably improved,

Same might occur with a new brain - It might feel weird at first - Later you may like it better
- little fatigue, a mind that can think, concentrate, and calculate at faster speed and for a greater
length of time.

No it doesn't exist yet - And will it ever?

Since no such thing yet exists, I can only use a sci-fi example of how it may come to be.

In the classic sci-fi series Star Trek, The Next Generation, 'Data' the super Humanoid android
has what is called a 'Positronic Brain', an invention of a hypothetical doctor.

Now while some, even those who say it may be possible in the far, bu not near, future to bring
about an autonomous electro-mechanical brain - I might wonder if some new inventions in technology
might not facilitate an earlier development?

They say there is more computer power in today's smart phone than all of the computer power
that put a Man on the Moon - that was only 50 years ago.

- Just imagine what another 50 years of advancement might bring ???
 
Back
Top