Wouldn't it be easier to just use drones if the problem with energy source was solved? They can fly, carry stuff just as well, do not eat, sleep or even breathe, thus making chemical or biological weapons less useful instead of relying on some pacts and treaties. They can even be automated and emp shielded if situation so requires. The only problem with that would be a threat to bystanders but it's largely a non-issue with military applications. Where these suits would be useful is in localized conflicts where creating fortifications or mass destruction would be cumbersome, like protection, infiltration, urban warfare, police functions, home defense, basically anything that might find use for a serious cover that you carry with yourself but using an automated machine is dangerous or ineffective.
>Guided evolution is the future.
Nah, artificial intelligence and visualization of consciousness are the future. The flesh is weak, the machine is strong! So basically Gigga Nigga Terminator Prime, shining as bright as the energy of multiple consumed stars and dying systems
>Digital machines can never achieve sentience
We can't find sentience in humans either. Decision making on the other hand is a good trait and can be analyzed using digital methods.
>They can roughly ape intelligence via problem solving algorithms, but that'sit
For now, maybe, if we're speaking of problem solving using generated algorithms, while computers are superb at repeating previously mastered tasks up to the perfection biological brain can never achieveunless it functions like a biocomputor using the same principles :^).
>They can never really think
It's not like humans are any good at that. Few can only achieve at least somewhat reliable amount of control via long and tedious processes of training and learning yet still remain susceptible to basic logical fallacies.
>Machines are tools, they were meant to be wielded by us, not replace us
It's not like plenty of humans are anything but tools that are just cheaper to feed then to power a similar machine.
>Not to mention the human body can outlast pretty much any machine
human body is irreplaceable, can be damaged beyond repair, needs more maintenance than any machine and is vulnerable to the widest amount of threats evolution has to offer, including viruses, bacteria, poisoning and even sun blasts, ffs.
>Can you think of any machine that can run for over 90 years without replacement parts
Yeah, they are pretty crude but they do thattake guns for example, while our modern technology doesn't need the required durability threshold and so isn't that developed in that field. Still, it's not like humans do not need time to sleep, eat, breathe, heat, drink, move and many more things. That's not "without management", even if you do not use repair parts(they're actually superior in that regard because they are not immediately used and can last longer depending on intensity of use in a lot greater dependence than just resources that only vary so much).
>Plus the human brain still out classes modern supercomputers that use enough energy to run a small town
Outclasses in what regard? The most basic calculator that's 150yo can perform greater calculations than any human ever lived could even come close by.
>Fucking hell, even out muscle fibers are more efficient than most mechanical devices when it comes to converting chemical energy to work
Unified energy source simplifies logistics and greater scalability and modability of the platform allows a lot more flexible platform. This is especially true if you judge humans by current technology like you do the tech.
> Fuck starting over from scratch when we have a great platform to work with.
The only problem is the platform is a steaming pile of shit. It's so huge pile of unrecognizable random code made out of features that worked during random generation and selection and other features that are build on these ones. It's so fucking huge mess that it's easier not only just create artificial consciousness but create a new lifeform from scratch rather than trying to fix this unholy abomination.
>Yes we can
How?
>Brains are 10000 times more energy efficient than computers and store more data
In the current form(remember, only 20 years ago we've thought of a 100gb as big while evolution has been only good at spontaneously creating life, not perfecting it). Machines are still 10000 times more efficient at reliability and precision of the storage of information.
>The human brain doesn't use any form of code since it is an anaolog computer
You've outed yourself as unintelligent fucktard that knows nothing about computing operations.
>analog computer are superior in many aspects to digital computers
Indeed, that's why quantum computers exist. Also, we can go even beyond that and get decentralized nano machine meshnets based on relativistic pattern recognition and visualization, aka our brain but not just with proteins. Or build one system on top of each other and use them for different functions that seamlessly integrate in each other.
>but aren't capable of logic
More like we aren't capable of logic, we can only simulate it by learning similar patterns and recreating them. We count by utilizing our previous memories of numbers during events we previously experienced, unlike digital computers that do it in reverse, using logical basis to describe events from the ground instead of keeping ever fading away mix of images of these events. Ever heard of mathematical logic? Of course not.
>or cognition
You'd have to define cognition first and find it in humans. Define scientifically, i remind you.
>That's voluntary extinction,the highest form of cuckery.
The highest form of cuckery is to degrade your own concept of self to the ugly, weak and pitiful shell your existence has been tied to.
>I think, therefor I am.
Doesn't work that way, kiddo. You clearly don't think.
>Dude, you just threw a bunch of scifi buzzwords together to try and sound smart
i could explain that if someone else asked but i won't for an illiterate retard like you. Just know that you're too stupid to get this because you're too busy jerking off to human master race. All without knowing that you'd have brain cancer if your body ever actually had a brain.
>because even you know deep down that this thinking machine bullshit is pure fantasy
Keep projecting
>Literally just applying logic to math
More like math is pure logic. If you ever finished school you'd know about that.
>the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses
Nuh uh, you've got to give me something other than your imaginary experiences. A machine can analyze, process and acquire information , it actually does that now under the palm of your hands without you even noticing it.
>Machines do not have senses
They do.
>You apparently missed the part about guided evolution and improving the species
You'll always end up with something inferior because this inferiority is the only trait that differentiates it. You are clinging to using steam in the era of nuclear reactors because this if the only thing your pitiful ego can relate to.
>with something incomprehensibly inferior
What really is incomprehensibly inferior is your joke of a mind that is unable to grasp anything beyond this existential autofellatio of a philosophy.
>be more into computers than biology
That's not even about computers or biology. There's nothing wrong with biological computersaside from being inferior to nanotechnologies, it's you reject anything that interferes with the identity you tie to an archaic piece of history with only thing that makes it special is its own inferior engineering solutions and inefficiency.
I'm actually for that, aside from the thing that makes organics special being that they are carbon based.
>Does your calculator think when it does math?
Yes
>Yes it does
No it, doesn't. You have absolutely no proof that you think and many here highly doubt that question.
>read Descartes
>read a book
>Give me an example
CIA listening to you via your phone might help with that.
>No you cant, because we don't have nanomachine computer networks.
<What is scientific progress
>No, math is a subset of logic
And how does that contradict my statement? Math is the purest form of logic applied to the sphere of quantities. There are some other applications that are similarly pure from deviations but they are few and certainly distant from humans.
>Are you actually autistic?
I could ask the same to you. You still didn't provide any proof to the existence of cognition in a human brain, Mr. pile of scripts.
>Give me an example of a sapient machine.
Define sapience.
>Our brains already use nano machines in the form of chemical signals
And there's nothing wrong with that, i never said so. I just said that there's no point in limiting ourselves to carbon based organic nanomachines when we can have all others as well.
>And they can do more
But can they? Can a human brain calculate the angle at which to enter stratosphere? Can a human brain maintain petabytes of historical data about many years past? Can a human brain make precise alterations in a material?
>with 10 wattz of energy than a computer that uses enough energy to power a town
Most things that i described require no more than a simple raspberry pi that consumes many times less, as well as requiring only one unified source of energy - electricity, while humans require so much food, water, air and heat that their maintenance and energy costs go through the roof. That's without mentioning the fact that computers can work without delays and stops for more than just a week with permanent physical damage afterwards.
>Why not build off the already superior platform
Because it's not superior, you degenerate nigger. You've already been pointed out many inferiorities of the system. It's complexity and array of less than optimal engineering decisions make human body almost worthless platform for further progress, given that we can design the same platform using the same principles and even the same materials(however inefficient it may be) and end up with vastly superior results.
>instead of starting from starch using stick and stones
>Modern computing is sticks and stones
>Our brains are already superior to digital computers
>Already
You know that our brains have millions of years in development while(somewhat) modern computers are here for less than a century? if anything the opposite statement would be true - computers are already superior to human brains, though unlike lying bitch like you i'll point out in what regard they are superior - preservation and recreation of precise information, logical analysis and interconnection.
>I'm working on a more efficient thermonuclear reactor
Right now you're working on a digital computer that enables you to spew this senseless bullshit.
>You refer to humans as tools with no consciousness yet you think contemporary computers posses sentience
Not really. I refer to humans as lacking sentience because the statement about it is unfalsifiable and is no different than a set of scripts writing the same thing in a computer, aside from us knowing how computer functions due to simpler and clearer design. All your actions are literally a speculation on our lack of knowledge.
>I'm sorry, but you're not going to be able to transfer your conscious into a robot body and slaughter the chad who ran a train on your oneitis in high school.
Keep projecting, it'll surely strengthen your lack of argumentation. You've provided nothing but a pile of false premises with as much support for them as an average leftist would.
>That doesn't mean it will ever be possible
We already know nanomachines are possible, i don't see why not use them that way.
>Now show me a machine that can do so
Tay could do all those things.
>Which is retarded because carbon is the only chemical with the properties needed to build nano machines
Carbon isn't everything. Electrical computers, for example, can't achieve computing speeds that optical one can.
>Through the chaotic forces of nature rather than under the guidance of intelligent design.
>guidance of intelligent design
Why not cut out the middleman and apply intelligent design to the thing directly?
>Robots can only do specific tasks, and cannot think
Humans can only do specific tasks and thinking is some magic that you cannot provably describe.
>They can only do as instructed
Not if the instruction can alter itself.
>Plus the human body is extremely good for killing shit
Not really, you lying jew. It's good at using tools but you're nothing without them.
>A robot cannot sustain itself without a vast modern infrastructure
A modern robot. They aren't built for that. You could build a machine that fuels itself by burning everything around that.
>Which one would fare better if dropped on an alien planet with no outside support
You'd still die a painful death few days later, faggot.
>Bacteria are basically self replicating nanites
So what's the problem with making our own bacteria?
>I already said machines are tools, not the end all, be all.
And i already said that humans are tools, not the end of all.
>Did you forget that mathematicians and historians exist?
Did you forget that pattern recognition algorithms exist?
>Everything I've propositionedis possible
And i didn't argue with that, you stupid fuck. It's your propositions about impossible that are the problem.
>You're counterarguments are mostly scifi fantasy stuff that may very likely be impossible
And your counterarguments are mostly claims that humans are the perfect platform to create the ultimate lifeform and no thing should go beyond. All only to support some petty eugenics program.
>Whereas genetic modification
>Genetic modification is the only way to achieve greater form
>biological immortality
Is still limited by constraints of the physical body that can be destroyed.
>some experts
And some neuroscientists think that "cognition" or "free will" is nothing but a mental illusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201411/the-neuroscience-free-will-and-the-illusion-you
>At least digital machines.
And where did i say about limiting oneself to digital machines?
>She was basically a parrot repeating things with no thought.
And where did you find thought in humans again, faggot?
>You're better off using viruses since they're basically natural nanobots
Not using, creating and building
>ATP synthesis is more efficient than combustion
So what? It's not like we're planning to build such thing. It's proof of concept, not absolute perfection you keep talking about.
>Plus how would a robot burn say… solid wood for electricity?
In the oven, you fucking kike.
>Plus what if there's nothing to burn?
What is there's nothing to eat?
>Being able to use a wide variety of tools and weapons is are better than having claws, or any built in weapons
that's the point. Being a machine allows compatibility, both physical and informational far beyond any human body could.
>Not with genetically engineered bacteriophages that attack any foreign bacteria
So you're comparing some science fiction to modern robots? What a lying jew.
>I can't think of any rally drastic changes to the human form I'd add.Extra limbs and shit would hinder us more than help
>Literally judging only by the basic appearance
Start with improving already existing tools, they are shit, instead of pretending to grow limbs.
>I don't want the humanity to separate
Humanity is not something monollithic, you globalist kike.
> inevitably go to war due to Gause's law.
>Completely missing the point of the law and interpreting it in the stupidest way.
you apply the law about species out competing each other within an ecosystem and then conclude that there's inevitable war between species. It's not star trek, you fantasizing illiterate faggot.
>Didn't I already imply genetic modification?
CREATE, you stupid nigger, not alter or modify.
>I literally defined cognition
In non-scientific terms. That definition is unfalsifiable and so cannot be used for scientific discussion.
>Plus you have yet to explain how a machine thinks
By processing information. That is thinking.
>How i an abacus self aware?
Strawman, abacus doesn't precess information, it only helps pathetic human brain hold more numbers without forgetting them.
>Can they though?
Update your OS and see.
>because the latter would be physically impossible
Prove it. Some metals are simply superior for things like manipulators, even if they aren't used in processing units.
>They weren't created by an intelligent force
>That's how you define a tool.
>they weren't made for a narrow array of applications
Yes, they were made for a wide array of applications. It doesn't make them not tools.
>They don't think
Only because you play with the term "thinking" by defining it as a self-evident principle that can be subjectively observed. That's not the case. you need to observe it objectively, as we do today, finding mechanisms and predicting human decisions before it recognizes them itself.
>And robots can't be destroyed?
Virtual cognition can be transferred, unlike biological that is tied to the body.
>From the article
>A scientific theory is a theory
>Plus readiness potential is just precognition
Prove it, faggot. That theory is still viable even if not proven.
>Yes. It's impossible to transfer your mind into a machine
We don't really know what constitutes "mind" so you've not got stuff to transfer, for starters.
>for a long period of time will cause it to decay,
>implying human body doesn't decay over time
>So your only alternative is to build non human robots, voluntarily go extinct, and surrender the cosmos to non humans
you know that genetic modification can only be bone with unborn species, right? You're not going to get an injection and become giga nigga, only further generations might but you're going to die while watching them live forever. So YOU can't have a new body.
>build non human robots
Fuck you, i hate you more than any robot despite being human, you rotten piece of shit.
>surrender the cosmos to non humans
i don't care about "humans" owning cosmos or whatever. It's not a game with a set goal not do i need to adhere to some globalist standards or identity.
You are so fucking jewish with all that globalist humanism it's beyond disgusting. Go help humanity expand by letting a nigger fuck your wife. He's "human" after all.
Just fucking privatize military or at least part of it and you'll see vast improvements. The only reason not to do that is keeping monopoly, pushing for gun control and hiding the real size of the inefficient bloat the military has become.
>b-but someone will buy them and conquer you!
If you manage to offer great platform for mercenaries to base off they won't be able to hire enough to even have advantage in numbers, as well as finding mercs that are willing to fight against the ones who offer them best conditions to develop and organize and vice versa - you'll find a lot more support for a lot smaller price.
>You're born with a preset IQ amount
Not really. You are indeed born with some predisposition of intellect but most of of the shaping of human brain happens during childhood and doing work involving thinking, creativity, etc allows greater potential in the future. You also easier learn things in the childhood due to this - all the connections, skills and dispositions are not seated in your brain as deeply, while older people do have a harder time changing themselves than younger ones. Also, while some "average" IQ in one person can be considered fixed, it does change depending on the person's condition, like if one is really tired, thirsty, sleep-deprived or ill his capability to solve creative problems, understand and learn things and recognize images and shapes, while another person that is given some emotion-dampening, concentration enhancing or even energy-giving stimulant will show greater results. I remember going through internet IQ test at the age of 14 and getting 120 while 4 years later when i was visiting a psychologist and passing a completel survey(with combining pictures, figurines and stuff) i got max result they had - 140. It could be the first test being fake or something but i remember that i mostly started actively learning stuff and getting into philosophy myself from the age of 16 or so. It also feels rather differently to do any kind of mental activity, even going shopping. Sometimes when i haven't slept for 20+ hrs and after walking in brightly lighted halls i couldn't recognize the numbers on the price tags and notice separate products on the shelves despite having good enough sight for that. It might be my issue but i guess it'll work as an example.
As >>629827 pointed out, children that do not learn speech until 3 years will forever remain on the level of a wild animal, sometimes even a specific animal with its habits and behavior.
You seem to misunderstand what IQ is, mr. leaf. It's not a measure of acquired knowledge, which is true because one can know or not know certain fact regardless of IQ, but you're also wrong in that IQ is "amount of neuron connections" or something, as IQ represents first and foremost not some physical characteristic(that'd be measured on the body of the subject, like the density of neurons) but a personal trait named "intelligence" which we measure by doing these strange tests with shapes, pictures and objects.
Now we come to what IQ or, precisely, intelligence that it measures is. Intelligence is our ability to think, learn, make correct decisions and solve problems, as well as recognize patterns and think logically. There are many theories on what impacts or determines it but it is known for sure that intelligence changes over time both negatively and positively, precisely the mean IQ scores of tests at ages 17 and 18 were correlated at r=0.86 with the mean scores of tests at ages five, six, and seven and at r=0.96 with the mean scores of tests at ages 11, 12, and 13. Intelligence also decreases over time in the process of aging later.
On the point of education what you're saying is correct but assigning it to our argument is either a misunderstanding or a strawman. Most impact on intelligence(aside from actual genes) happens before any education takes place - during earlier ages of learning speech, socializing and other interactions with parents and largely suffering from lack thereof(there's also a thing about mother's physical and psychological state impacting child before birth) while public education generally teaches some specific skills that are useful for the children's owners and their further assimilation into the society they've built, though getting used to continuously wasting one's time on unproductive shit is the main one of them today in most places.
>Genie probably was born with a bigger IQ than us but starvation and disease she encountered in the fucking wilderness made the body cannibalize parts of the brain and parts of it died off, and she ended up like that.
More like all activities her brain did were centered around survival as an animal and so shaped her thinking, forming basic structures to rely upon afterwards that way. Mind you, that explanation fits into your theory of "constructive removal of connections", though i think that it's more about re purposing them and neurons determining what connections to use out of all available.
Your comparison is cool and all but doesn't add any meaning to your argument and so you can pick that piece of wood, carve a dildo from it and stick it up your ass.
I'm not saying that her activities didn't damage the brain. I'm saying that it wasn't the major factor as has been proven by people getting in the same situation, surviving and being able to properly function. It's not about magic, you stupid fuck.
Nice strawman, inbred retard.
Power armor does make sense during planet boarding though(spaceship boarding - just more strength which is still ok but not that important), as different planets have different gravity and so your weak humans accustomed to earth gravity(even hauling what hey haul now) will be unable to move and feel akin to an unprepared Alaskan army coming to Australia. Remember, a human accustomed to moon gravity(or lack of it on a space station) usually has a hard time walking on earth for a while after landing due to this thing so this additional, reliable strength enhancement could be the thing that enables any activity on a hard(and probably livable planet size of Neptune.
These suits were little more than sci-fi prop for propagandists to sperg about though. Just look at that triangles armor fabric. They should also added light blue diode lighting to shine through the gaps of this shit but for some reason they were either too stupid or not idiotic enough for that.
It literally is just a usual uniform with a fancy camo that has plastic hexagons and triangles thrown all over it. It also has no support for hands so it's not even a complete exoskeleton. STALKER exoskeleton seems to fit general direction, this piece of shit fits avatar 2 Hollywood movie.
We can but we haven't invented FTL yet so for now it still remains a problem that exoskeletons can partially fix.