POST 11
There are those out there who take an opposing philosophical position against the
proposed possibilities of simulated intelligent technology. In addition, many of these vantage
points I believe are deeply rooted in a sort of myopic view of scientific theory as well as a
moderate aversion to the societal change that will ensue as a result of continued technological
innovation. Not to say that many of the points raised from this end of the spectrum are not well
founded considerations within some abstract examination of philosophical implications, however
their proposed applications seem to connote a degree of proactive resistance.
The primary concern underlying the development AI is the necessity for a parallel
understanding and manipulation capacity of our own consciousness. Many of the present-day
naysayers wrap their contradictions around what the science currently lacks as opposed to
scrutinizing the validity of predominant theories. In recognizing that much of the forward
looking assertions concerning AI and consciousness rest primarily on hypothesized conjecture as
opposed to empirical results, these skeptics tend to rest comfortably within their enclosures from
progression.
Within the scope of contemporary futuristic perspective, it commonly believed that to the
extent that we will be able to recreate conscious mental behavior in computers, we will also be
capable of uploading our own consciousness into our personal computer systems. Effectively just
plugging in your brain, and transferring your memories and all other forms of “data” in your
head. However, skeptics retain the restrictive and abstract perception of the mind as a non-
transformable system of analog-based information. Suggesting there can be no translation within
a digital storage system. They maintain that the brain stores the information of the mind as
imperfectly holographic representations; describing peoples' memories as distorted and fuzzy as
they waver in and out of your consciousness.
POST 11
Progressive theories pertaining to these subjects understand in concert with the
opposition that we do in fact perceive our memories and thoughts to be transient inconsistencies
of cognitive data; however there involves very intricate method to this perceived madness. In
that, all thoughts are simply individual competitors for mental resources constantly engaging and
reengaging this pursuit. Thus, the resulting chaos it makes contextual sense within the
framework of competitive interaction; you win some, you lose some.
Exploring some of the reasons why these skeptics denounce much of progressive
conjecture, I arrive at a middle ground of compromise in appreciating many concerns that
address the overdependence of society on technological supplementation of existence. Take for
instance an era where it would be considered criminal to think the “wrong” thoughts or have the
“wrong” memories, or engage the “wrong” imagination. In a world of transferable
consciousness, these issues take on grave implications as we look to the future of societal
control, complemented by technology. Technologies can be promising, but they can also be very
threatening, not necessarily to our sense of who we are, but to our security and privacy as
individuals and our very notions of freedom itself. Inn addition to which, we must to look inward
as we look forward, as we begin our search for answers in emerging fields like AI,
nanotechnology, gene-therapy, and so forth. I agree whole heartedly that the defining pieces of
the puzzle do not lie solely within these developments, still yet we require the holistic
integration of the core human values such as integrity, ethics, accountability, humility, and
compassion, to name a few. These are the components of the human condition that will really
matter in the long run.