The power supply is the biggest issue. Genetically enhancing soldiers to make them stronger would be more practical.
Guided evolution is the future. If we leave it up to nature we could go extinct, or revert to an inferior organism like the dinosaurs did when they evolved into birds. We must leave this planet and conquer the galaxy. To do so we must be stronger, smarter, and tougher.
> artificial intelligence
Sorry,m8. Digital machines can never achieve sentience. They can roughly ape intelligence via problem solving algorithms, but that'sit. They can never really think. Machines are tools, they were meant to be wielded by us, not replace us. Not to mention the human body can outlast pretty much any machine. Can you think of any machine that can run for over 90 years without replacement parts? Plus the human brain still out classes modern supercomputers that use enough energy to run a small town. Why waste time with an inferior platform instead of building off an already far superior design? Fucking hell, even out muscle fibers are more efficient than most mechanical devices when it comes to converting chemical energy to work. Fuck starting over from scratch when we have a great platform to work with.
>We can't find sentience in humans either.
Yes we can. Sapience can easily be ascertained. Machines don't have it.
>Outclasses in what regard?
Brains are 10000 times more energy efficient than computers and store more data. Even DNA is far better than any digital memory storage.
>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.
You've outed yourself as another generic programmer autist who knows nothing of the human brain. The human brain doesn't use any form of code since it is an anaolog computer,and analog computer are superior in many aspects to digital computers. Digital computers are good for doing specific tasks, but aren't capable of logic, or cognition. They can crunch numbers really well,but then again hammers pound nails better than fists and nobody wants to replace their hands with hammers. And what would be the point of letting robots supplant us? That's voluntary extinction,the highest form of cuckery.
https://blog.degruyter.com/algorithms-suck-analog-computers-future/
>How
I think, therefor I am.
>Also, we can go even beyond that and get decentralized nano machine meshnets based on relativistic pattern recognition and visualization
Dude, you just threw a bunch of scifi buzzwords together to try and sound smart because even you know deep down that this thinking machine bullshit is pure fantasy and you have nothing tangible to offer.
>Mathematical logic
Literally just applying logic to math.
>Define cognition
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. Machines do not have senses.
>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.
You apparently missed the part about guided evolution and improving the species rather than replacing it with something incomprehensibly inferior. Your misanthropy leads me to believe that you're a retarded kike. I understand that this an image board so most people are going to be more into computers than biology, but this is retarded.
They really don't, Does your calculator think when it does math?
>Doesn't work that way, kiddo. You clearly don't think.
Yes it does, read Descartes. He invented much of the math you claim to use.
>Machines have senses
Give me an example
>i could explain that if someone else asked
No you cant, because we don't have nanomachine computer networks.
>Math is pure logic
No, math is a subset of logic. If you ever cracked open a book you'd know this
>Nuh uh, you've got to give me something other than your imaginary experiences.
Are you actually autistic? Not making fun of you, it's a legit question.
> A machine can analyze, process and acquire information
Give me an example of a sapient machine.
>There's nothing wrong with biological computersaside from being inferior to nanotechnologies
Nice job outing yourself as a retard, again. Our brains already use nano machines in the form of chemical signals. And they can do more with 10 wattz of energy than a computer that uses enough energy to power a town.
> 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.
You're one to talk about efficiency. Why not build off the already superior platform we have instead of starting from starch using stick and stones?
>You are clinging to using steam in the era of nuclear reactors because this if the only thing your pitiful ego can relate to.
Other way around. Our brains are already superior to digital computers. I'm working on a more efficient thermonuclear reactor, your just dicking around with a hamster wheel. You're an absolute low functioning autistic retard. You refer to humans as tools with no consciousness yet you think contemporary computers posses sentience. 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.
<What is scientific progress
That doesn't mean it will ever be possible.
>Define sapience
Self awareness, wisdom, the ability of an entity to exercise judgement. Now show me a machine that can do so instead of stalling by telling me to define things that everyone already knows .
>Math is the purest form of logic applied to the sphere of quantities
Is Mechanical engineering the purest form of engineering? Is surgery the purest form of medicine?
>I just said that there's no point in limiting ourselves to carbon based organic nanomachines when we can have all others as well.
Which is retarded because carbon is the only chemical with the properties needed to build nano machines.. Learn chemistry before you larp as someone who knows shit.
>You know that our brains have millions of years in development
Through the chaotic forces of nature rather than under the guidance of intelligent design.
>Because it's not superior, you degenerate nigger.
It is though. Robots can only do specific tasks, and cannot think. They can only do as instructed. Plus the human body is extremely good for killing shit. Modern humans killed and ate rival hominids during the early paleolithic and wiped out most mega fauna.
> 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.
A robot cannot sustain itself without a vast modern infrastructure. Pretty hard to get electricity and rare earth metals in nature. Humans can eat nearly anything organic and survive. Which one would fare better if dropped on an alien planet with no outside support?
>Inb4 muh self replicating nanobots will break down raw material in an instant to maintain the robots
Impossible due to thermodynamics. If that was possible then bacteria would be able to decompose fallen trees within moments. Bacteria are basically self replicating nanites.
>Right now you're working on a digital computer that enables you to spew this senseless bullshit.
And? I already said machines are tools, not the end all, be all.
>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?
Did you forget that mathematicians and historians exist?
> You've provided nothing but a pile of false premises with as much support for them as an average leftist would.
Now that's projection. Everything I've propositionedis possible. You're counterarguments are mostly scifi fantasy stuff that may very likely be impossible like sentient AI, nanobot computer networks, Whole brain emulation. Whereas genetic modification, and even biological immortality is entirely possible. We already have genetically modified organisms, and there are a few biologically immortal animals out there. On the other hand some experts are saying that sentient machines are mathematically impossible. At least digital machines.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25560-sentient-robots-not-possible-if-you-do-the-maths/
>Tay could do all those things
Nope. She was a good meme, but still a meme. She was basically a parrot repeating things with no thought.
>Carbon isn't everything. Electrical computers, for example, can't achieve computing speeds that optical one can.
This has nothing to do with electrical, or optical computing, just that carbon is the key to nanobots. You're better off using viruses since they're basically natural nanobots.
>You could build a machine that fuels itself by burning everything around that
ATP synthesis is more efficient than combustion. Hence why human muscles are more efficient than car engines. Plus how would a robot burn say… solid wood for electricity? Plus what if there's nothing to burn?
Not really, you lying jew. It's good at using tools but you're nothing without them.
Our hands and nervous system evolved around tool use. Being able to use a wide variety of tools and weapons is are better than having claws, or any built in weapons.It's the reason we usurped the food chain.
>You'd still die a painful death few days later, faggot.
Not with genetically engineered bacteriophages that attack any foreign bacteria
and enhanced immune system, faggot.
>And your counterarguments are mostly claims that humans are the perfect platform to create the ultimate lifeform and no thing should go beyond
Pretty much. 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. We've dominated this planet with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers, 10 toes, and 46 chromosomes. Plus I don't want the humanity to separate into different species that'd inevitably go to war due to Gause's law.
>Why not cut out the middleman and apply intelligent design to the thing directly
Didn't I already imply genetic modification?
>Humans can only do specific tasks and thinking is some magic that you cannot provably describe.
Humans can do a plethora of tasks, and I literally defined cognition. Plus you have yet to explain how a machine thinks. How i an abacus self aware?
>Not if the instruction can alter itself.
Can they though?
>So what's the problem with making our own bacteria?
I never said there was, just that they'd be organic, as opposed to metallic because the latter would be physically impossible.
>And i already said that humans are tools, not the end of all.
Humans aren't tools. They weren't created by an intelligent force, and they weren't made for a narrow array of applications.
>Did you forget that pattern recognition algorithms exist?
They don't think.
>Is still limited by constraints of the physical body that can be destroyed.
And robots can't be destroyed?
>Muh readiness potential
From the article
>While it remains possible to adopt any of these stances without being delusional, any position should account for the experiments of Libet and Fried. Of course, as with most scientific data, there is plenty of room to dispute their interpretation. You could say that these studies are simply flawed, citing various methodological problems such as lack of precision in measuring the time of one’s conscious decision – maybe it occurs earlier than the experiments suggest. Or maybe, despite Fried’s findings, the readiness potential isn’t all it’s cracked up to be – after all, it only predicts movement with about 70-80% accuracy
Plus readiness potential is just precognition.
>Genetic modification is the only way to achieve greater form
Yes. It's impossible to transfer your mind into a machine. So you can't have a robot body. Well maybe you could do the whole brain in a jar, but putting your brain in something other than a human body for a long period of time will cause it to decay, so that's out of the question. So your only alternative is to build non human robots, voluntarily go extinct, and surrender the cosmos to non humans. How is that ascension?
>>681425
Nevermind.
I have stayed up till 8 AM and will now sleep till 6 PM