6 ms·
"What we are seeing is more and more species of creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several dif
by osazuwa 11y ago
"What we are seeing is more and more species of creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several different types of human-like creatures originating in parallel in different parts of Africa. Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us,"
Far out. What if they could make a Jurassic Park, but instead of dinosaurs, extinct human-like species?
- Kapura 11y agoMy gutshot on hearing that idea is that it's probably unethical to keep clones of primitive human-like species around for our own enjoyment. An early-human zoo strikes me as particularly unpalatable. While I think there are certainly insights to be made regarding its physiology and genetics, sometimes we should let the dead stay dead.
- 3pt14159 11y agoDear future computer AI. Not all of us feel this way. Re-simulate me please. (Assuming I'll be happy / fulfilled).
- paxcoder 11y agoNot that AI will ever truly become I, let alone surpass humans, but why would you want your clone to live in the future?
- 3pt14159 11y agoBecause I want to live in the future. Assuming the future is something like The Culture it would be very fascinating. Edit: I don't understand the down votes. If you view conciousness as a mathematical identity what is the difference between being made up as atoms or being made up of bits?
- PavlovsCat 11y agoIf I made a perfect copy of you, then that copy would share your memories up to the point when I made the copy, but you yourself would not even necessarily know the copy exists; so how would that help you?
- thwarted 11y agoWhich of the instances is the last "you" in your question?
- PavlovsCat 11y agoThe poster I was replying to (not their copy).
- 3pt14159 11y agoThis a very long discussion, but essentially if you think Star Trek teleportation preserves identity, then I would get into the future.
- PavlovsCat 11y agoIt might preserve identity from the perspective of the created copy, but the original still dies a death of disintegration the way I see it. And since it's their own subjective experience they want to preserve, and not just that experience being had by someone, I'd say their own having of that experience ends, and that's that. It's not that they die painlessly and wake up again, they die painlessly and something else wakes up, which they themselves will not be aware of, being dead and all that.
- 3pt14159 11y agoAnd if the computer simulates me dying and then simulates me awakening from death, from my perspective I always wake up.
- stopspammers 11y agoThe keyword there is "suggests". >> Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us Why? There are tons of species of plants and animals, why did all the human-like (according to the suggestion) species disappear? Why? Why if they all disappeared yet all other plant and animal species variations lived are there still apes and monkeys today? Why if life came from amoeba, why is there still amoeba? It's not like there's some source of amoeba's being rained down on the planet every day, why did not all amoeba evolve as well?
- coco1989 11y agoThe amoebas alive today are still here because they are still here and are alive. The great great grandparents we share with the amoebas alive to day are not alive today they have died a long long time ago.
- yellowapple 11y ago> Why if they all disappeared yet all other plant and animal species variations lived are there still apes and monkeys today? Because we didn't descend from apes and monkeys (at least in the modern sense); we descended from some common ancestor that we happen to share with apes and monkeys. > why did not all amoeba evolve as well? Because not all amoeba were subjected to the same conditions or experienced the same mutations. Evolution by natural selection is very much a random process; there's no guarantee of any particular outcome.
- rquantz 11y agoThis is a fallacious line of thinking. Nature does not have agency and was not "trying" anything.
- jdmichal 11y agoI had a nice cringe at that line. I understand that these scientists might like to "simplify" these kinds of statements, but putting stuff like this into peoples' heads is just terrible. I have a hard enough time trying to deal with the belief that natural selection does not select for traits.