Future evolution of humans

[tansy]

For those who believe in evolution, do you think that humans will eventually evolve into creatures that are no longer recognisably human, and if so, how long do you think it would be likely to take? (this question is for non-Christians, I may have a question for theistic evolutionists later)

 

[Washington]

If anything, we will sort of "devolve.".

Long before we have any chance to evolve into anything in the least bit different we will have run out of mineral and other resources to sustain ourselves. So if humans can hold onto a strictly hunter/farmer existence for many, many, many thousands of years we may change in some way significant way, making us Homo sapiens ?.

 

[tansy]

If anything, we will sort of "devolve.".

Long before we have any chance to evolve into anything in the least bit different we will have run out of mineral and other resources to sustain ourselves. So if humans can hold onto a strictly hunter/farmer existence for many, many, many thousands of years we may change in some way significant way, making us Homo sapiens ?.

I thought we already were homo sapiens, or have I missed something.

 

[Washington]

I thought we already were homo sapiens, or have I missed something.

We are Homo sapiens, but more precisely the subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens, (the other subspecies is the extinct H. s. idaltu). The question mark in my, "Homo sapiens ?" was to indicate the evolved future subspecies form, which, of course, lacks any name.

 

[tansy]

We are Homo sapiens, but more precisely the subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens, (the other subspecies is the extinct H. s. idaltu). The question mark in my, "Homo sapiens ?" was to indicate the evolved future subspecies form, which, of course, lacks any name.[/quote

Oh. I see what you mean, but do you think, theoretically, that humans could evolve (or devolve) into something NOT recognisably human?

 

[Washington]

We are Homo sapiens, but more precisely the subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens, (the other subspecies is the extinct H. s. idaltu). The question mark in my, "Homo sapiens ?" was to indicate the evolved future subspecies form, which, of course, lacks any name.[/quote

Oh. I see what you mean, but do you think, theoretically, that humans could evolve (or devolve) into something NOT recognisably human?

Over millions of years I imagine they could.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh. I see what you mean, but do you think, theoretically, that humans could evolve (or devolve) into something NOT recognisably human?

Assuming we don't go extinct first, I'd say so.

 

[ragarth]

I disagree with washington, while I believe natural evolutionary processes are still taking place within humanity, I think it won't be long before we're picking and choosing traits, and evolving the species on our own using traits not naturally possible such as human/ai hybridization and cybernetic enhancement. Basically, within the near to mid future, the line between human and machine will begin to blur, and the infrastructure we create will become a component of our evolutionary process. This classifies me as a transhumanist.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Basically, within the near to mid future, the line between human and machine will begin to blur, and the infrastructure we create will become a component of our evolutionary process.

So you believe we may evolve into the Borg?

*

 

[ragarth]

So you believe we may evolve into the Borg?

*

I doubt it, the borg are rather ugly, and I doubt people would want to look like that unless they're really geeky trekkies.

 

[tansy]

I disagree with washington, while I believe natural evolutionary processes are still taking place within humanity, I think it won't be long before we're picking and choosing traits, and evolving the species on our own using traits not naturally possible such as human/ai hybridization and cybernetic enhancement. Basically, within the near to mid future, the line between human and machine will begin to blur, and the infrastructure we create will become a component of our evolutionary process. This classifies me as a transhumanist.

Hm, yes that's an interesting thought. What about reproducrion?...or would we all end up having test-tube babies...in fact the baby being brought to full-term outside the womb? All the stuff of science fiction...but then, much of science fiction has actually come to pass.

Which brings up another question...what makes us human? At what point would you say we stop being human and become something else?

 

[ragarth]

Hm, yes that's an interesting thought. What about reproducrion?...or would we all end up having test-tube babies...in fact the baby being brought to full-term outside the womb? All the stuff of science fiction...but then, much of science fiction has actually come to pass.

Which brings up another question...what makes us human? At what point would you say we stop being human and become something else?

These are certainly interesting questions! I imagine, just as we have multiple methods of fertilization now, in the future we'll have multiple methods of reproduction. Some women may want to go through the natural process, while others would prefer not to. A news article a bit back spoke of a scientist in australia who's working on taking cells and turning them into male gametes, this could potentially allow lesbian couples to have biological children (Guy's will just have to deal with their obsolescence.), so laws and regulations will limit the reproductive choices somewhat, and would be the ultimate limiter when it comes to growing full grown humans.

Truthfully though, I also believe that disease, aging and death will eventually be conquered, and my choice of research objective- AI and neural networks- is specifically geared towards this goal. If this does actually come to pass, effective immortality would have a negative impact on the birth rate as people wait a century or so to have children. This intimately ties in with the 2nd question...

In a true transhumanist view of society, the face of humanity varies by an increasing amount as new technology is incorperated into enhancing us. The line between human and machine blurs, people opt for designer cosmetics of a truly amazing level (A furries wet dream. ) and AI and human become indistinguishable, even interchangeable as each take on aspects of the other. For this reason, I've already begun opting for the idea that anything possessing intellectual qualities equivalent to us is 'human' so if AI capable of true original thought and cognizance come about, that is as human as an actual red blooded homo sapiens to me. In this way, coding an AI can be considered a form of reproduction.

Keep in mind that I still have to be scientific about this, there is no guarantee that these things will come about, if artificial intelligence shows itself to be a physical impossibility, then much of my hope for the future ends right there. At the same time, this would also be indirect proof of the existence of a soul.

 

[tansy]

I'll reply to your post Ragarth either later on or tomorrow, as I have some more questions, but at the moment am surrounded by bmy family who are watching a noisy Western, and I can't think straight!

 

[ragarth]

I'll reply to your post Ragarth either later on or tomorrow, as I have some more questions, but at the moment am surrounded by bmy family who are watching a noisy Western, and I can't think straight!

Westerns have that effect! As do puppies, which I blame the majority of my poor posts upon.

 

[Bombila]

I think, aside from the machine enhanced humanity Ragarth envisions, we are most likely to be manipulating our own genetic material to get the effects we desire. For years now we have been inserting genes from one species into another, so we get bacillus enhanced insect resistant tomatos and potatos, glow in the dark mice, and so on.

I think at first this technology will be used to eliminate heritable diseases, to fix genetic glitches, to reverse birth defects; then to enhance qualities we find cosmetically desireable, like a tendency to lean-ness, or height, or good hair; and eventually we may begin to enhance ourselves for other reasons: divers wanting gills along with lungs perhaps, mountain climbers wanting enhanced ability to use low-oxygen air, high-steel workers (if any are still needed) wanting prehensile tails, people wanting enhanced vision/hearing. Then we might see a cultural/social shift in what humans consider attractive or desireable, and that is when we might begin to see humans with fur and whiskers, feathers, pointy ears, extra breasts/fingers/limbs, maybe even decorative wings.

Of course, first we have to survive as a species long enough to develop and use these advances.

 

[tansy]

I think, aside from the machine enhanced humanity Ragarth envisions, we are most likely to be manipulating our own genetic material to get the effects we desire. For years now we have been inserting genes from one species into another, so we get bacillus enhanced insect resistant tomatos and potatos, glow in the dark mice, and so on.

I think at first this technology will be used to eliminate heritable diseases, to fix genetic glitches, to reverse birth defects; then to enhance qualities we find cosmetically desireable, like a tendency to lean-ness, or height, or good hair; and eventually we may begin to enhance ourselves for other reasons: divers wanting gills along with lungs perhaps, mountain climbers wanting enhanced ability to use low-oxygen air, high-steel workers (if any are still needed) wanting prehensile tails, people wanting enhanced vision/hearing. Then we might see a cultural/social shift in what humans consider attractive or desireable, and that is when we might begin to see humans with fur and whiskers, feathers, pointy ears, extra breasts/fingers/limbs, maybe even decorative wings.

Wouldn't modifying humans in some of those ways cause more problems...I mean, in order to add certain things, one would have to modify also other thigngs. I tcould get quite complicated. I mean. supposing we had fur...would that cause a problem with our sweat glands or anything..you'd probably have to keep modifying and modifying to accomodate the modifications, wouldn't you? A bit like when you have medication for one problem, you sometimes have to have another medication to counteract some of the adverse affects caused by the first one.

.

 

[tansy]

These are certainly interesting questions! I imagine, just as we have multiple methods of fertilization now, in the future we'll have multiple methods of reproduction. Some women may want to go through the natural process, while others would prefer not to. A news article a bit back spoke of a scientist in australia who's working on taking cells and turning them into male gametes, this could potentially allow lesbian couples to have biological children (Guy's will just have to deal with their obsolescence.), so laws and regulations will limit the reproductive choices somewhat, and would be the ultimate limiter when it comes to growing full grown humans.

Truthfully though, I also believe that disease, aging and death will eventually be conquered, and my choice of research objective- AI and neural networks- is specifically geared towards this goal. If this does actually come to pass, effective immortality would have a negative impact on the birth rate as people wait a century or so to have children. This intimately ties in with the 2nd question...

In a true transhumanist view of society, the face of humanity varies by an increasing amount as new technology is incorperated into enhancing us. The line between human and machine blurs, people opt for designer cosmetics of a truly amazing level (A furries wet dream. ) and AI and human become indistinguishable, even interchangeable as each take on aspects of the other. For this reason, I've already begun opting for the idea that anything possessing intellectual qualities equivalent to us is 'human' so if AI capable of true original thought and cognizance come about, that is as human as an actual red blooded homo sapiens to me. In this way, coding an AI can be considered a form of reproduction.

Keep in mind that I still have to be scientific about this, there is no guarantee that these things will come about, if artificial intelligence shows itself to be a physical impossibility, then much of my hope for the future ends right there. At the same time, this would also be indirect proof of the existence of a soul.

That must be fascinating - neural networks I mean.
Well, A couple of questions.
Even if AI were possible, how about emotions? I suppose they could be created? I don't think we'd be human without emotions.
Also, what do you have to do to create intelligence? I mean, there must be so much going on in the brain, what would be the minimum requirements? Computers can do amazing things, but wouldn't you have to programme in an an incredible amount of info for AI to be anything like "human"?
Also, from my point of view, I think we have a spirit, so even if some android type AI was created, would that in itself make it less than human? For me, I think it would, but what's your viewe on it?

Also. what do you think about researchers on the brain, who have found certain brain activity in people who are praying I think it was, sorry, can't remember exactly. What do you think about brain structure or activity and religious belief?

 

[ragarth]

That must be fascinating - neural networks I mean.
Well, A couple of questions.
Even if AI were possible, how about emotions? I suppose they could be created? I don't think we'd be human without emotions.
Also, what do you have to do to create intelligence? I mean, there must be so much going on in the brain, what would be the minimum requirements? Computers can do amazing things, but wouldn't you have to programme in an an incredible amount of info for AI to be anything like "human"?
Also, from my point of view, I think we have a spirit, so even if some android type AI was created, would that in itself make it less than human? For me, I think it would, but what's your viewe on it?

Also. what do you think about researchers on the brain, who have found certain brain activity in people who are praying I think it was, sorry, can't remember exactly. What do you think about brain structure or activity and religious belief?

Hiya! It is incredibly interesting to me! Before I answer your questions, let me just say that I see us as highly complex chemical machines. Our experience of free will is an illusion produced by a highly complicated neural network. Given this, emotion is part of the neural network, and therefore can be replicated into any media capable of handling a neural network of the complexity of the human brain, including future computers.

To emulate human intelligence in a computer would require a greater understanding of what makes us tick than what we have now. AI research and neurobiology evolve hand in hand, with computer modeling of neural networks providing valuable data to biologists while experiments on organic neural networks (brains) provides data that makes our computer simulations more accurate.

In terms of hard system requirements, the blue brain project is capable of emulating between 10,000 to 100,000 neurons and their associated synaptic connections within the neocortical column of a rat brain using a single bluegene/L super computer. With around 100 billion neurons in the human brain, this is a lot of really expensive super computers. The number of super computers goes up further, however, when you realize that the connection density has a direct corelation on runtime, meaning that to keep your virtual brain 'thinking' at the same speed we think would require an exponential increase in processing power at a rate dependent upon the average number of synaptic connections per neuron, so we're talking a *LOT* of computational power.

To detail the origin of this problem, you need to understand that a computer is a serial processing device (more or less) whereas the brain is not. A processor does one thing at a time, really fast. RISC processors are the epitome of this, and CISC processors sort of alleviate this by allowing several functions to be done by a single operand (modern computers fall in between these two extremes). Streamlining the pipe allows a more efficient use of processor resources per job, hyperthreading lets a processor use disparate resources within it for different jobs, but any single resource is dedicated to a job for the time that a given instruction is taking place. Multicore processors are valuable to neural net research because it breaks the serial nature of computer processing, but not by enough to manage very large scale neural networks like a cat's brain.

The development of a completely new processor architecture is needed to really let neural network technology take off, and with the creation of memristors, this is now a real possibility. This new processor will have to be asynchronous between it's constituent components, and have a unique bus architecture that can handle the exponential scaling inherent in neural net communications, a serial bus would turn it into a normal processor, while a true neural bus (where every node connects to every other) is impractical. At this point, it's my opinion that bus architecture is the biggest hindrence to the development of industrial capable solid state neural networks.

...Sorry for the rant *blush*

Back on topic, I don't believe in a soul, so in my opinion an AI android would be equal to me as a thinking, intelligent entity. If the AI were created with emotions, would you feel it's okay to treat it as below you?

I think religion has served a vital purpose in human society, and this is why it's so prevalent now. It is not, however, truth. External stimulus has a direct impact upon our brain structures, which is why gay men having female-like brains is not indicative of a gay gene, and why religious experience having a direct impact on the brain is not proof of religion's validity. Both these are causation/corelation errors.

(To note, I do believe that sexual preference has a certain amount of both nature and nurture to it, but touting brain structure as proving nature is a logical fallacy.)

 

[tansy]

Hiya! It is incredibly interesting to me! Before I answer your questions, let me just say that I see us as highly complex chemical machines. Our experience of free will is an illusion produced by a highly complicated neural network. Given this, emotion is part of the neural network, and therefore can be replicated into any media capable of handling a neural network of the complexity of the human brain, including future computers.

Sorry, I was going to try to keep God out of this thread, but I find with my viewpoint |I can't, so I hope you will bear with me.
It's interesting what you say about free will, as I think free will is commonly misunderstood...I've had to think a lot about that since becoming a Christian. It sees to me that people haven't really got free will, at least in some senses...trouble is I'd have to go into an awful lot of explanation to put over what I mean, and of course, it would be from my perspective, as opposed to, or even maybe as well as our being complex chemical machines.




























epTo emulate human intelligence in a computer would require a greater understanding of what makes us tick than what we have now. AI research and neurobiology evolve hand in hand, with computer modeling of neural networks providing valuable data to biologists while experiments on organic neural networks (brains) provides data that makes our computer simulations more accurate.

In terms of hard system requirements, the blue brain project is capable of emulating between 10,000 to 100,000 neurons and their associated synaptic connections within the neocortical column of a rat brain using a single bluegene/L super computer. With around 100 billion neurons in the human brain, this is a lot of really expensive super computers. The number of super computers goes up further, however, when you realize that the connection density has a direct corelation on runtime, meaning that to ke your virtual brain 'thinking' at the same speed we think would require an exponential increase in processing power at a rate dependent upon the average number of synaptic connections per neuron, so we're talking a *LOT* of computational power.

To detail the origin of this problem, you need to understand that a computer is a serial processing device (more or less) whereas the brain is not. A processor does one thing at a time, really fast. RISC processors are the epitome of this, and CISC processors sort of alleviate this by allowing several functions to be done by a single operand (modern computers fall in between these two extremes). Streamlining the pipe allows a more efficient use of processor resources per job, hyperthreading lets a processor use disparate resources within it for different jobs, but any single resource is dedicated to a job for the time that a given instruction is taking place. Multicore processors are valuable to neural net research because it breaks the serial nature of computer processing, but not by enough to manage very large scale neural networks like a cat's brain.

The development of a completely new processor architecture is needed to really let neural network technology take off, and with the creation of memristors, this is now a real possibility. This new processor will have to be asynchronous between it's constituent components, and have a unique bus architecture that can handle the exponential scaling inherent in neural net communications, a serial bus would turn it into a normal processor, while a true neural bus (where every node connects to every other) is impractical. At this point, it's my opinion that bus architecture is the biggest hindrence to the development of industrial capable solid state neural networks.

...Sorry for the rant *blush*

That's quite all right! I myself can rant on for ages sometimes, if I don't restrain myself
Thanks for the comprehensive explanation...I thought it would be tricky to copy everything our brain does! Our brains are incredible aren't they.


nt

entitBack on topic, I don't believe in a soul, so in my opinion an AI android would be equal to me as a thinking, intelligey. If the AI were created with emotions, would you feel it's okay to treat it as below you?

I think religion has served a vital purpose in human society, and this is why it's so prevalent now. It is not, however, truth. External stimulus has a direct impact upon our brain structures, which is why gay men having female-like brains is not indicative of a gay gene, and why religious experience having a direct impact on the brain is not proof of religion's validity. Both these are causation/corelation errors.

(To note, I do believe that sexual preference has a certain amount of both nature and nurture to it, but touting brain structure as proving nature is a logical fallacy.

)

Yes, that is sort of what I was thinking about, if AI android was or seemed human, how would we relate to it? As you say, physically, we are a bunch of chemicals. Do you reckon an android (am using that term cos of sci fi, don't know if it's what scientists would use) could have personalities?

So do you mean it's our individual brain structure, plus external stimulus, that makes us a certain way, for example religious or whatever, or have I misunderstood you?




[/quote.


Sorry this post is all spaced out, but for some reason, I was having trouble with the quote thingies

 

[ragarth]

Our brains are incredible aren't they.

Yes they are, everything about biology is really incredible, but the brain, being the seat of conciousness, is especially interesting to me.

Yes, that is sort of what I was thinking about, if AI android was or seemed human, how would we relate to it? As you say, physically, we are a bunch of chemicals. Do you reckon an android (am using that term cos of sci fi, don't know if it's what scientists would use) could have personalities?

Certainly, since I take a purely materialistic view as to what makes us us, then it's completely reasonable that what gives us personalities can be emulated in silico as well as the properties of cognizance.

So do you mean it's our individual brain structure, plus external stimulus, that makes us a certain way, for example religious or whatever, or have I misunderstood you?

I believe you got it. We are our brain's structure. The synaptic connections define who we are and how we react to the outside world. At the same time, external stimulus is capable of changing that brain structure, so experience is just as capable of defining who we are as how our brains are configured at birth by modifying that seat of our minds.

I'd be interested in your views on free will.