Excellen Browning Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 You randomly took two references, didn't read either through, and just threw them on here? Because in the second article, if you had taken the time to read through it, it's clearly written - and fairly early on to boot - that certain assumptions about the human mind have to be made to be able to assume it might be a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Assumptions which are possible. Why else would they write the article? Mental masturbation? The article clearly supports the idea. I know you agree it's possible in the future, you're just nitpicking for the sake of it. Edited April 2, 2013 by Olwen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentEden Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 There's a distinct reason why we can't discuss WWIII even though it's a possible eventual outcome: any discussion of it is baseless conjecture at the moment. We have no logically-necessary reason to conclude that any given conflict will be the beginning of WWIII, so we have no idea which states or non-state actors will be involved, and we also don't know when it will happen, so we can't discuss the technological level with any accuracy... the list goes on. Likewise, while this hypothetical you're discussing is ultimately, with the right technological leaps, within the realm of possibility, we don't know what those leaps are, so we don't know what their effects will be or how this technology will ultimately manifest itself. Without those details we can't know whether or not we'll satisfactorily meet your hypothetical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 I don't see why we need to know about the technology to discuss an end result: a near-perfect emulation of a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I don't see why we need to know about the technology to discuss an end result: a near-perfect emulation of a person. You can't discuss about what you don't know. Maybe this 'near-perfect emulation' will not be as perfect as you say it is. Either way, we can't discuss about something which doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentEden Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 I don't see why we need to know about the technology to discuss an end result: a near-perfect emulation of a person. Because: (a) we don't know how that emulation differs from an actual human being and (b) the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how this is practical enough to be worth discussing, meaning you'd need to be able to demonstrate how the technology gets there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.