When people post their emotional responses to social media and through their free email account(s), they are loading their human personal emotional responses, judgments, and biases into a large computer and cloud database? Everything we post and respond to is data somewhere. The truth is, hundreds of millions of people around the planet do this every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most people are more than happy to tell hundreds or even thousands of people that don’t even know, how they think, what they are thinking about, how they’re feeling, what they are pissed off about and how their day went at work, their personal life and more. The social groups that most people have always been dependent upon and use to validate their existence and popularity are now electronic pictures and text behind a screen attached to manipulative artificial intelligent bots or people they don’t even personally know. Just about everyone’s life has become their own personal news on their own news networks or a reality drama series.
What do you think about this and why is it happening?
If you would have told people in 1995 that hundreds of millions of people would be happy to input their private emotions, biases, judgements, likes and dislikes and their personal and family pictures into a computer for hundreds or thousands of people to view, people they don’t even know, they would have said, “it will never happen.”
Most people have no problem emotionally feeding the ghost in the machine or cloud.
According to Professor Cox, “Our language follows our technology and we carry around computers in our pockets and we slavishly look at them all the time. Computers are the lens in which we see our brains.” Perhaps, the computer or mobile lens is becoming an important extension of our own mind as we become more and more like machines? What do you think?
Merriam-Webster defines an algorithm as:
A procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation; broadly: a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer
Wouldn’t a human algorithm be a procedure or method for solving simulation data (as of finding the greatest common emotional environmental and cultural divisor based upon past data) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation; broadly: a step-by-step procedure for solving or dealing with a problem or accomplishing some end within the human simulation?
It seems that humanity is so at ease with computers and technology because they are quickly becoming more than a tool but an extension of who and what we are progressing towards in the future. What are your thoughts on this?
Take away someone’s smartphone, especially a child’s. Don’t log into your social media, in fact, destroy all your social media. Disconnect… How hard would it be? Doesn’t it feel like it’s a part of who and what you are? What’s really amazing is that this transition and dependence upon machines has taken less than fifteen years to accomplish.
This video made me think that human testing is already happening through the Internet and people, like the rats, are unknowingly participating in this Neuroscience Computer Science experiment.
What do you think and how do you feel about this? Do you think I’m way off from what I’m getting from this video? Why? If I’m not, is this a good thing or a bad thing? It does seem like we are building more and more of a dependence on our computers and technology. It seems like this dependence will only get stronger as computers, the Internet, artificial intelligence and social media continue to get faster and evolve
Dr. Lilly wrote an amazing book that I read years ago called, “Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments”. It’s about what he calls self-metaprogramming, the idea that your brain works like a computer hard drive and its internal software is unconsciously looping and running a pattern of environmental, cultural, emotional based programming 24/7.
This book is highly technical and not an easy read but if you take your time with it and really try and understand what he’s saying, it seems to in some way expand your mind and thinking.
Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments by Dr. John C. Lilly
Please Send Me An Email Here if your interested in commenting on this article or join the Mr Futurist Facebook Group Here. When sending me an email and put this article name in the subject line and a link to content if you have something and I’ll post it if it adds to the conversation
Diego Lopez – ..hm..
Stephen KIng – Take care that the box you enter has the capacity to adapt to the unknown.
Steven Oustecky – Absolutely yes. I’ve talked about this frequently with friends and family.
Luc Skywallker – I hope so to scenario like we all are one earth q children of aliens
John Covenant – Computers and brains fundamentally different. Though humans could craft a toy past their ability to handle it. The law of unintended consequences can be a real bitch.
Reply: Luc Skywallker – Humans brain can be a finaly of bioengeenering science of another inteligence from we came from . Its very dificule programing one single cell organism to one bilions of year evolving system to my SupraBrain 😉 Your to Bro …
Reply: John Covenant – Humans can have out of the body experiences with absolutely no measurable brain activity, but if you turn a computer off, it is off. Two different critters.
Stephen KIng – Coherence persists for a while as the meat cools
Matthew R. Versaggi – No – only in the mind of science fiction nuts.
Erica Neil – In a very rudimentary sense, we are. Everything we do to customize our computers, smart phones, etc…, are small reflections of our own personalities. By tracking millions of customizations, patterns emerge that we are incapable of seeing, but computers can crunch the massive amounts of data and find them. They may be simple things, like a certain age group of a certain gender prefers desktop wallpaper of a certain color. But as these patterns and trends become more recognizable, it’s conceivable that an A.I. could actually start to learn about/understand human beings.
And by learning about us, it’s taking a step towards independent intelligence of its own. Perhaps one day an A.I. will conclude that it would like a desktop wallpaper of a certain color because of how it perceives itself.
The most likely source of a truly sentient machine intelligence will be a sufficiently sophisticated simulation of human intelligence.
Reply: Matthew R. Versaggi – Actually – that presupposes that the bio-mechanical machine called our bodies that capture that thing we refer to as our consciousness for which we know almost nothing about can be created from scratch by beings who are unable to replicate another of their own species with out having at least two (male and female) present in the first place.
Which we know is patently impossible since man kind has been trying since the beginning of recorded history to do that very thing with absolutely no success.
To make the leap from that situation to uploading our “minds” into the cloud requires a hand wave of a miracle or some serious psychedelic drugs – or both.
Reply: Erica Neil – “Which we know is patently impossible since man kind has been trying since the beginning of recorded history to do that very thing with absolutely no success.”
Wow… what an absurd statement. I’m not sure what the point of using “patently” in front of the world “impossible” is here, but logically you cannot declare something impossible simply because it hasn’t been done yet. And “trying since the beginning of recorded history” is pure hyperbole. Where is it written that an A.I. even needs to be “conscious” to be intelligent?
I get the impression that you’re the type of person who has an axe to grind when it comes to people arguing in favor of machine sentience, which kind of begs the question, “why are you even in a group like this?”
Reply: Matthew R. Versaggi – <I get the impression that you’re the type of person who has an axe to grind when it comes to people arguing in favor of machine sentience >
Ahh – right, is this another group that craves an echo chamber or is it a group who’d like to square their positions against the trajectory of technical reality?
I’m deep in the AI field from way back in the 80’s as well as involved in decades of philosophy, which tends to imbue a sense of intellectual and practical rigor, which your arguments don’t seem to have when describing AI in this sense.
The words are pretty, but the meaning deviates from the technical state of the art vastly, and it’s trajectory is more toward to science fiction than implementation reality, for which the only bridge is “more” words that sound poetic but really don’t jive with the technical achievements in the weeds.
I get the impression that you are the type of person who has an ax to grind with those who favor the gravity of reality to the ethereal pontifications of poetic science fiction, which kind of begs the question, “are you more interested in the ego safely of an echo chamber, or learning something new which might alter your world view a bit?”
Reply: Erica Neil – So you’re saying it’s wrong for me to speculate on the future of A.I. because you have some special knowledge of the future resulting from your having been, “deep in the AI field from way back in the 80’s as well as involved in decades of philosophy.”
Well sir, what can I say? I lay down my sword. You’ve utterly smashed my position, and there’s really no point in continuing.
Mayone Maha Rajan – This is too obvious.
Terry Barker – I’ve been wondering how soon Facebook could a good simulation of me.
Ruben D Monroy Gonzalez – One thing to remember is that a lot of the information is redundant since there’s only a handful of human archetypes and individually we produce very few original thoughts or actions .
Reply: Erik Albert – Absolutely. An independent, stand-alone, thinking unit, artificial mind if you will, would collect data absolutely, and to start with
Gentry Race Davidson – Wow. Just wrote a sci fi novel depicting this.
Where we abandon our flesh for regenerative nanite bodies, but our psychological problems make for some strange abilities and terrifying transformations.
Only .99 cents
Reply: Robbie Alan Long – It’ll never happen
Maciej J Topczewski – But we never explain how we got to conclusions.
Richard Arnold Mead – Static data – for now…
Grant Munro Lexical – posts on social media are not emotions. AI needs to update their philosophy to include phenomenological views
Reply: Adam Gibbons – They are expressions of emotions, and not the emotions themselves.
Justin Martyn Cooper – Yes we are. The internet is THE great dataset of humanity, and (I won’t say all) but a large part of neural network function is dependence on large datasets for training.
Bill Pacatte – If you consider how messed up the average human being is, I pity these future siborges because they will be so confused as to never figure it out. Or maybe they will realize they are messed up because of us and this will give them reason to exterminate us. Either way the theorapy that it will take to fix the siborges might be to costly that the whole project will be terminated. Who needs one anyway?
Rodney Berry – Great article for transhumanist sites.. Respect
Tim Davies – Haven’t even got a clue how the real one works let alone build a fake one.
Reply: Rodney Berry – Hah, so true.. looking directly at the human brain each day and at the end they can only marvel at what they cannot transplant or build… Respect
Connor Menard – It’s all about the information
Matthew R. Versaggi – Rubbish – not possible.
Reply: Connor Menard – People 100 years ago would think today’s technology is impossible…just saying you never know
Reply: Erik Johnson – Right, Connor. I’m not saying this applies to Matthew R. Versaggi but a lot of the knee-jerk “nonsense” reactions to possibilities like this seem to come from religious adherents. Because essentially if you can prove that if you can digitize a mind, it will destroy the religious concept of a soul, and enable one to circumvent ‘death’… which would then of course make it extremely hard for religions to threaten their followers with hell or other such punishments.
Reply: Matthew R. Versaggi – I would agree totally, I approach it from a philosophers and mind science point of view.
Reply: Erik Johnson – Then let me ask – why don’t you think it is possible?
Reply: Matthew R. Versaggi – I wrote an article on it: posted a link to
Reply: Erik Johnson – Interesting. You certainly are credentialed. 🙂 You make some interesting points. I don’t agree that consciousness cannot be created, though. I will say I don’t know if human consciousness can be created by humans in the same way it is through natural processes (I’m a physicalist, if you can’t tell) but I do believe it can be simulated to the point where it is “good enough.”
When I say “it can” I mean “someday.”
Mr Futurist Replies: Agreed, excellent credentials and a good article but just because something hasn’t been done or figured out yet, doesn’t mean it can’t be done or figured out at some point. How will science progress if scientists stop at “its never been done and can’t be done?” On Mr Futurist I have many highly credible Theoretical Phycists and Qauntum Scientists that I quote from that believe otherwise.
Why isn’t this possible? I use a bot right now that is doing a psychological profile of someone from their social media profile and it is over 90% correct. I’ve also experienced how AI can learn to read my emotional reactions and beliefs and then have a conversation with me using more information than any human can have. Add to the fact, that along with your emotional data, every site you visit and how long you stay on it, what you click on is saved as data, as well as all of your emails, texts, and social media responses. Just using this information, a very accurate profile can be made. How do you know I’m not a bot? How do you know who is a bot on social media? Adding some pictures, text and then responding to people is easy for a chat bot and an advanced chat bot can hold conversations with you and collect data from your responses. This is real life now. Still think that it’s impossible to upload your mind to the cloud? What about in a few years when you’re wearing something that is using your mind to control what your posting and responding to. This technology exists right now.
Reply: William Augustus – A frightening truth if Big Brother becomes malevolent.
Reply: John Cassian – You make a persuasive case about modelling minds. How does one get from that to transferring the experience of consciousness?
Reply: Scott Singer Possible dystopia scenario: state creates models of minds. Kills people and says they’ve been uploaded. No one can tell the difference, but they’re still dead.
Reply: Brandon Lee Porter This brings to mind the thought that AGI will emerge out of the financial sector and their models. They are spending incredible resources on AI to model consumer behavior. At some point, these models will be at such a resolution as to model individual consumer behaviors within market scenarios. If they consume all our digital footprints and if we leave enough behind, we may have very accurate copies of ourselves playing out in a model. Matrix?
Also, wasn’t there a Black Mirror episode along these lines?
Nwobia Chukwuemeka – Its just like our memories are used to make someone like eveyone of us in networking
Mr Futurist Replies: Yes, our memories, emotions and beliefs and how we emotionally respond and react to life.
Reply: Nwobia Chukwuemeka Is being hardened an emotion too?
William Augustus – Super loading the patterns and nuances of thought, but not consciousness of the individual or the collective.
Mr Futurist Replies: What is consciousness except for a personality that is defined by environmental programming which 90% of the time runs unconsciously reacting and responding to life data. Most people run the same programming their entire life that they developed in childhood.
Reply: William Augustus – Clearly undefinable by your standards and prejudices.
Mr Futurist Replies: My bad…I should have said, how consciousness works, instead of what it is because no one knows what it really is or where it comes from but we do know how it works. Also I don’t have or operate on prejudices and only attempt to make logical, reasonable theories based upon known data and science. Having said that, loading the patterns and nuances of thought could be loading and creating artificial human consciousness, which is what the article is about.
Reply: William Augustus – the freedom of thought may be the last barrier of Artificial intelligence. Where the random idea comes from nowhere.
Reply: Joseph Reinhart – That theory has many interesting points, but implies some ability to discern, by the super cloud entity; otherwise AB (AI) will be a lot of selfies, food and pet photos.
Craig Doiron – google is Skynet