How would you Design a Humanoid ?

[UniversalAlien]

I would personally like to see people more driven by logic and reason than by emotions.

AGREED

Really? And do you think we would still be human beings after such an amazing, unexpected and radical change to our core make-up?

...

Or are you just thinking of a moderate drift in the direction of logic and reason?

If, say, some humans became much more rational and less subject to uncontrolled emotions, why should they care whether unstable types think they are inhuman?

"Unstable types"? I think you misunderstand the direction I intended with my comments. I don't seek to say "Hey, you're logical, so you can't be a human like us!" I was saying something more like "Do we want to direct our efforts toward this new vision of humanity, or would that compromise our very, er, humanity?"

On a Worldwide historical and current events view HUMANITY FAILS no matter how you look at it. Just today Russia celebrated its victory over nazism as it continues its genocide in the Ukraine. And let us never forget the USA in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
We have yet to achieve an even Type 1 Civilization, or any civilization for that matter. Our 'Humanity' is pathetic.

So you can at least see why I ask "How would you Design a Humanoid ?" Seems to me there is something very wrong with a species that can not evolve beyond its animalistic history

[Pattern-chaser]

Seems to me there is something very wrong with a species that can not evolve beyond its animalistic history

We have always been animals; we will always be animals. So our 'animalistic' history is not something we can or should transcend, IMO. On the contrary, and especially because you mention evolution, I think our animalistic heritage is what we have, and it defines what we are. How could we evolve beyond the essence of what we are, and have always been? And what is so "very wrong" about us?

[SteveKlinko]

I think that when Science finally Understands and can Explain Consciousness, it will be Sensible and Expected that the next step be taken to create artificial Life forms that are more durable than what Evolution has provided. Not only for currently alive people (Conscious Minds) to transfer to, but for all people (Conscious Minds) that have ever lived and died to return to. This might be the great purpose of Science that we did not even realize.

There might be many benefits in having your Conscious Mind (CM) transferred to a Machine and specifically to a Machine Physical Mind (PM). Pain will probably be obsolete in a Machine incarnation of a CM. A Machine will have a different way to report diagnostics of it's internal functioning and operations than by simply using Pain. Of course the main benefit of Transferring a CM to a Robotic Machine will be for the durability of it. Even if the Machine is completely destroyed in some accident, a new Machine can be built for the CM to return to. These are just some of the benefits that might be enabled by this kind of Transfer. Most Biological civilizations across the Universe will probably eventually discover how to do this and are already at this stage of development on their own planets. Maybe when we learn how to Connect a CM to a Machine we will discover all the CMs that have ever existed throughout the whole Universe. This is how we might one day communicate with other parts of the Universe.

[Sy Borg]

I would personally like to see people more driven by logic and reason than by emotions.

AGREED :!:

Really? And do you think we would still be human beings after such an amazing, unexpected and radical change to our core make-up?

...

Or are you just thinking of a moderate drift in the direction of logic and reason?

If, say, some humans became much more rational and less subject to uncontrolled emotions, why should they care whether unstable types think they are inhuman?

"Unstable types"? 🤔 I think you misunderstand the direction I intended with my comments. I don't seek to say "Hey, you're logical, so you can't be a human like us!" I was saying something more like "Do we want to direct our efforts toward this new vision of humanity, or would that compromise our very, er, humanity?"

It depends on what you mean by "compromise humanity". If we are less animalistic, are we more human? Are unstable types who ride their emotions "more human" than stable rationalists?

[GrayArea]

Is Man the logical and expected result of Evolution

Science is advancing rapidly - In the near future we, Humans, may become capable of literally creating artificial life that can mimic
biological Human life - And in many ways may be created to be superior to the existent Human.

I'll give you an imaginary, but at least possible, future where you will have the power to correct any mistakes made by Evolution.

Can you design a Human that is better suited for the future Can you alter the internal death wish that drives Humanity to destructive
self and social tendencies to destroy his own kind - fix the evolutionary paradigm that will drive the Human species to extinction

Maybe this new science is still beyond your imagination - But it is possible

Is the Human species capable of evolving to a higher plane of existence either from altering internal biological flaws
or designing a 'New Humanoid' better than the old biological one

I believe the peak of human evolution is when they merge with the reality they currently live within. It is when the duality of the finite self and infinite non-self disappears completely, and when only the unity of infinite self exists. Sort of like the Omega Point Theory. Depending on how you look at it, you may end up believing that it already has happened, like me—only if you deny the need for distinction between the self and non-self, believing they were always just one thing(Due to the self both being defined as the self as well as a part of reality).

Similar to what Alan Watts believed, and I quote him: "You are an aperture through which the Universe is looking at and exploring itself." Also very similar to the idea of Enlightenment in Buddhism.

This process will not be caused through biological means but a manual one. However in the end, whatever we end up doing is a consequence of biology and nature anyway.

[Pattern-chaser]

It depends on what you mean by "compromise humanity". If we are less animalistic, are we more human? Are unstable types who ride their emotions "more human" than stable rationalists?

I mean would such a radical change, change us to the extent that we are no longer what we have always been: homo sapiens; I mean: would our humanity be compromised by such seismic alterations?

If we are less animalistic, we are, by definition, less human. For we are nothing if not animals.

I'm not sure what stable and unstable types are, I only reused your terms.

[Sy Borg]

It depends on what you mean by "compromise humanity". If we are less animalistic, are we more human? Are unstable types who ride their emotions "more human" than stable rationalists?

I mean would such a radical change, change us to the extent that we are no longer what we have always been: homo sapiens; I mean: would our humanity be compromised by such seismic alterations?

If we are less animalistic, we are, by definition, less human. For we are nothing if not animals.

I'm not sure what stable and unstable types are, I only reused your terms. 😉

By "unstable" I mean those who ride their emotions rather than use their brains.

There may be unforeseen circumstances, but animalism seems positive. While I love animals, the entire model of life is grotesque, with everyone killing and eating everyone else. Beautiful, sensitive, intelligent creatures suffering and dying in the most horrific ways. Humans don't always do it so easy either.

Must we life forms always be stuck in this brutal ouroboros situation? Might this be something to be transcended? There will be losses, just as people tend to lose some of their charm, innocence and spontaneity as they grow up. However, as per that example, the gains of maturing may be preferable to the losses incurred.

[Pattern-chaser]

By "unstable" I mean those who ride their emotions rather than use their brains.

Why do you express this as a binary choice? Either use emotions or use intellect? Why not both? At the same time, even? It's what humans have always done. Sometimes we use more emotions, and others, we make more use of intellect, but we do both, most of the time, in some (varying) ratio.

There may be unforeseen circumstances, but animalism seems positive. While I love animals, the entire model of life is grotesque, with everyone killing and eating everyone else. Beautiful, sensitive, intelligent creatures suffering and dying in the most horrific ways. Humans don't always do it so easy either.

I find it difficult to see life as being "grotesque"; it is what it is. Moral/value judgements seem inapproriate to me. Consuming other living things to survive may not be pretty, but it's how the whole world works. I see it more as the 'web of life' than as carnage. Generally, death is not "horrific", it's just death. Only humans, and a very few other species, indulge in torture, which really is "horrific", and "grotesque" too.

[UniversalAlien]

I find it difficult to see life as being "grotesque"; it is what it is. Moral/value judgements seem inapproriate to me. Consuming other living things to survive may not be pretty, but it's how the whole world works. I see it more as the 'web of life' than as carnage. Generally, death is not "horrific", it's just death. Only humans, and a very few other species, indulge in torture, which really is "horrific", and "grotesque" too.

True, it is what it is - Eat and be eaten; ingest, digest, excrete. The biological food chain rules.

Thing is Humans are, as far as we know, the only species given {or evolved to} the ability to imagine another way
- A cleaner more efficient, and possibly kinder and gentler way of existence.

Fact is 'IF' one day AI is developed to the so called 'Singularity' where it actually exceeds Human intelligence - It could develop
Humanoids that appear Human, can act and feel like Humans - But with one big difference ENERGY EFFICIENCY

These hypothetical Humanoids of the future would not need to 'ingest, digest, and excrete - They could easily function on easily
assimilated energy sources such as the Sun. We could rapidly advance from a type 0 civilization to a type I or even 2.

"The Kardashev Scale – Type I, II, III, IV & V Civilization"

We have reached a turning point in society. According to renowned theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, the next 100 years of science will determine whether we perish or thrive. Will we remain a Type 0 civilization, or will we advance and make our way into the stars?

Experts assert that, as a civilization grows larger and becomes more advanced, its energy demands will increase rapidly due to its population growth and the energy requirements of its various machines. With this in mind, the Kardashev scale was developed as a way of measuring a civilization’s technological advancement based upon how much usable energy it has at its disposal (this was originally just tied to energy available for communications, but has since been expanded).

https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scal ... vilization


Want to know what it 'feels like' to 'live' as an advanced thinking and feeling machine I do

[Sy Borg]

By "unstable" I mean those who ride their emotions rather than use their brains.

Why do you express this as a binary choice? Either use emotions or use intellect? Why not both? At the same time, even? It's what humans have always done. Sometimes we use more emotions, and others, we make more use of intellect, but we do both, most of the time, in some (varying) ratio.

I am not thinking as you imagine. I just look at the world, millions and millions of absolute idiots making ridiculous emotional claims about topics they know nothing about, that a minute's reflection and study would correct. Have you ever checked out the "logic" of flat-Earthers or "pro-lifers"?

If you have a problem with shifting away from atavism towards intelligence, then you do not think the way I thought you did.

Ultimately, though, the only useful role emotions will have to AI is the human interface. If you can calculate options a million times faster than you can, then you can operate in situations that rely on emotions with logic.

There may be unforeseen circumstances, but animalism seems positive. While I love animals, the entire model of life is grotesque, with everyone killing and eating everyone else. Beautiful, sensitive, intelligent creatures suffering and dying in the most horrific ways. Humans don't always do it so easy either.

I find it difficult to see life as being "grotesque"; it is what it is. Moral/value judgements seem inapproriate to me. Consuming other living things to survive may not be pretty, but it's how the whole world works. I see it more as the 'web of life' than as carnage. Generally, death is not "horrific", it's just death. Only humans, and a very few other species, indulge in torture, which really is "horrific", and "grotesque" too.

I disagree violently and absolutely. Life is replete with torture, which need not be deliberate. Even putting aside, every terminal cancer patient, for starters. Every creature that is slowly eaten alive - and that happens a great deal. Burning alive in fires. Suffocated under mud flows. Slow starvation. Dying from exposure. From thirst. Limbs lost. Infected gashes. Diseases that rot from the inside out. Fierce venoms and poisons. Debilitating spikes from defensive animals and plants leading to starvation. Chimps tearing Capuchin monkeys apart by the arms. And yes, torture inflicted by dolphins, orcas.

If you like, I can list another half page of nature's nightmares, if that's what's required to put to point across. Nature's beauty tends to induce a halo effect that masks the horrors within. It just seems like "the web of life" when one is safely behind a keyboard and not having their gizzards slowly pulled out via the anus.

[SteveKlinko]

By "unstable" I mean those who ride their emotions rather than use their brains.

Why do you express this as a binary choice? Either use emotions or use intellect? Why not both? At the same time, even? It's what humans have always done. Sometimes we use more emotions, and others, we make more use of intellect, but we do both, most of the time, in some (varying) ratio.

I am not thinking as you imagine. I just look at the world, millions and millions of absolute idiots making ridiculous emotional claims about topics they know nothing about, that a minute's reflection and study would correct. Have you ever checked out the "logic" of flat-Earthers or "pro-lifers"?

If you have a problem with shifting away from atavism towards intelligence, then you do not think the way I thought you did.

Ultimately, though, the only useful role emotions will have to AI is the human interface. If you can calculate options a million times faster than you can, then you can operate in situations that rely on emotions with logic.

There may be unforeseen circumstances, but animalism seems positive. While I love animals, the entire model of life is grotesque, with everyone killing and eating everyone else. Beautiful, sensitive, intelligent creatures suffering and dying in the most horrific ways. Humans don't always do it so easy either.

I find it difficult to see life as being "grotesque"; it is what it is. Moral/value judgements seem inapproriate to me. Consuming other living things to survive may not be pretty, but it's how the whole world works. I see it more as the 'web of life' than as carnage. Generally, death is not "horrific", it's just death. Only humans, and a very few other species, indulge in torture, which really is "horrific", and "grotesque" too.

I disagree violently and absolutely. Life is replete with torture, which need not be deliberate. Even putting aside, every terminal cancer patient, for starters. Every creature that is slowly eaten alive - and that happens a great deal. Burning alive in fires. Suffocated under mud flows. Slow starvation. Dying from exposure. From thirst. Limbs lost. Infected gashes. Diseases that rot from the inside out. Fierce venoms and poisons. Debilitating spikes from defensive animals and plants leading to starvation. Chimps tearing Capuchin monkeys apart by the arms. And yes, torture inflicted by dolphins, orcas.

If you like, I can list another half page of nature's nightmares, if that's what's required to put to point across. Nature's beauty tends to induce a halo effect that masks the horrors within. It just seems like "the web of life" when one is safely behind a keyboard and not having their gizzards slowly pulled out via the anus.

If there is a useful purpose in the Universe for Excessive Suffering (beyond usefulness for Survival), I don't understand it. But I have a feeling that it might not be as bad as we seem to think it is. Great thing for me to say all comfortable here at my desk typing on the computer. But the important thing is that all Suffering is apparently eventually ended. Someone once made the observation that Excessive Suffering beyond any usefulness for Survival exists because there is no Survival advantage in Evolving a shut off switch for this type of Suffering.

[Atla]

If there is a useful purpose in the Universe for Excessive Suffering (beyond usefulness for Survival), I don't understand it. But I have a feeling that it might not be as bad as we seem to think it is. Great thing for me to say all comfortable here at my desk typing on the computer. But the important thing is that all Suffering is apparently eventually ended. Someone once made the observation that Excessive Suffering beyond any usefulness for Survival exists because there is no Survival advantage in Evolving a shut off switch for this type of Suffering.

Actually I think most organisms seem to be content most of the time. There is a lot of carnage, but even more contentedness. If life was just carnage, it couldn't have made it this far.

[SteveKlinko]

If there is a useful purpose in the Universe for Excessive Suffering (beyond usefulness for Survival), I don't understand it. But I have a feeling that it might not be as bad as we seem to think it is. Great thing for me to say all comfortable here at my desk typing on the computer. But the important thing is that all Suffering is apparently eventually ended. Someone once made the observation that Excessive Suffering beyond any usefulness for Survival exists because there is no Survival advantage in Evolving a shut off switch for this type of Suffering.

Actually I think most organisms seem to be content most of the time. There is a lot of carnage, but even more contentedness. If life was just carnage, it couldn't have made it this far.

Let me have my Coffee in the Morning and my Beer at night, and I am mostly content.

[UniversalAlien]

If there is a useful purpose in the Universe for Excessive Suffering (beyond usefulness for Survival), I don't understand it. But I have a feeling that it might not be as bad as we seem to think it is. Great thing for me to say all comfortable here at my desk typing on the computer. But the important thing is that all Suffering is apparently eventually ended. Someone once made the observation that Excessive Suffering beyond any usefulness for Survival exists because there is no Survival advantage in Evolving a shut off switch for this type of Suffering.

Actually I think most organisms seem to be content most of the time. There is a lot of carnage, but even more contentedness. If life was just carnage, it couldn't have made it this far.

Tell this to the next version of the ever evolving Covid 19 {or other super viruses} as they destroy biological life.
There is no status quo in biological nature, it is war all the time - Contentedness is a false illusion
Because biological Humans have made it this far does in no way guarantee tomorrow - Natural history is paved with the tombs of extinct species.The current biological Human may already be a dinosaur

[Atla]

If there is a useful purpose in the Universe for Excessive Suffering (beyond usefulness for Survival), I don't understand it. But I have a feeling that it might not be as bad as we seem to think it is. Great thing for me to say all comfortable here at my desk typing on the computer. But the important thing is that all Suffering is apparently eventually ended. Someone once made the observation that Excessive Suffering beyond any usefulness for Survival exists because there is no Survival advantage in Evolving a shut off switch for this type of Suffering.

Actually I think most organisms seem to be content most of the time. There is a lot of carnage, but even more contentedness. If life was just carnage, it couldn't have made it this far.

Tell this to the next version of the ever evolving Covid 19 {or other super viruses} as they destroy biological life.
There is no status quo in biological nature, it is war all the time - Contentedness is a false illusion
Because biological Humans have made it this far does in no way guarantee tomorrow - Natural history is paved with the tombs of extinct species.The current biological Human may already be a dinosaur

Bla bla most members of those now extinct species were content most of the time when they lived.