actually I'm not.
if you say you're going to make an "x"
ok..what's an "x"
define it...
if you don't know what it is...how do you know if you've made it or not?
It's discussed in Nick Bostrom's paper which I link to from my post. I'll grant you it's a very difficult thing to define. The experts in this field are working on multiple definitions (general intelligence, super intelligence, etc). Defining intelligence leads to defining consciousness (only conscious and semi-conscious beings exhibit what we might agree through consensus as being intelligence) and defining consciousness is what this whole project will accomplish (as we understand the nuts and bolts of the human brain and how it give rise to various emergent properties of the mind). So, in some sense, it's a "we'll know it when we see it" answer. The Turing test is one example we have to nail in to down further, but there will be many more, I'm sure. Beating the world champion at Go was a big step forward, but still not general. It's coming though. I see no evidence to believe otherwise.
I have every confidence that 'we'll' be able to augment and enhance people. 'plug-ins' for new and better senses.intelligence, skills, reaction times...etc..etc..etc.... However...I've seen exactly zero indication that we'll be able to make people from scratch.
It's possible by the time we do that, we'll be indistinguishable from that which we create in terms of being an augmented biological cybernetic organism.
I have no difficulty understanding augmentation. In fact I are. I have a gold crown. My toof is augmented. But wait..there's MORE...I were corrective lenses...AND not only that...I take both Blood Pressure medicine AND diabetes medicine.
I'm augmented.
That's a fact jack..the question is not IF..but to what degree. How much.
I see no limit....
I see ZERO evidence of building an intelligence from ground...uh...Zero.
Augmentation..yes.....construction..not so much.
Now we're playing the Wittgenstein game of arguing over language.
actually I'm not.
if you say you're going to make an "x"
ok..what's an "x"
define it...
if you don't know what it is...how do you know if you've made it or not?
It's discussed in Nick Bostrom's paper which I link to from my post. I'll grant you it's a very difficult thing to define. The experts in this field are working on multiple definitions (general intelligence, super intelligence, etc). Defining intelligence leads to defining consciousness (only conscious and semi-conscious beings exhibit what we might agree through consensus as being intelligence) and defining consciousness is what this whole project will accomplish (as we understand the nuts and bolts of the human brain and how it give rise to various emergent properties of the mind). So, in some sense, it's a "we'll know it when we see it" answer. The Turing test is one example we have to nail in to down further, but there will be many more, I'm sure. Beating the world champion at Go was a big step forward, but still not general. It's coming though. I see no evidence to believe otherwise.
I have every confidence that 'we'll' be able to augment and enhance people. 'plug-ins' for new and better senses.intelligence, skills, reaction times...etc..etc..etc.... However...I've seen exactly zero indication that we'll be able to make people from scratch.
It's possible by the time we do that, we'll be indistinguishable from that which we create in terms of being an augmented biological cybernetic organism.
I have no difficulty understanding augmentation. In fact I are. I have a gold crown. My toof is augmented. But wait..there's MORE...I were corrective lenses...AND not only that...I take both Blood Pressure medicine AND diabetes medicine.
I'm augmented.
That's a fact jack..the question is not IF..but to what degree. How much.
I see no limit....
I see ZERO evidence of building an intelligence from ground...uh...Zero.
Augmentation..yes.....construction..not so much.