[ExI] Kelly's future
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Jun 4 04:36:31 UTC 2011
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> charges or report the event. This whole thread is getting very
>>> strange... sigh. The corners of human sexuality are just strange.
>> ### Indeed. Regarding sexbots and satisfaction of the mythical
>> "emotional" needs of humans:
> Why, pray tell, are "emotional" needs mythical? In some sense, they
> seem to be the only needs that are real... ;-)
### I put the scare quotes around "emotional" for a reason: The word
is used to signify something special, on a higher plane, qualitatively
different from the base desires satisfied by porn and vibrators. I
tend to think there is nothing particularly sacred about humanity -
but then, hardly anything truly profane. There is a continuum of
complexity in the needs and desires that animate us, with simple
visual and tactile stimulation sufficient to produce lower spinal cord
reflexes and some dopamine release in the forebrain, and
correspondingly more complex sequences of input and processing needed
to achieve other computational outcomes (the ones that can trigger the
release of oxytocin, and gushing forth of poetry).
If so, then there should be also a continuum of devices capable of
satisfying correspondingly more complex desires, and hardly any
desires would be truly unsatisfiable without a human. Even status
affiliation, perhaps the most complex human desire, could be perhaps
satisfied by an automaton, if barely.
That's why I expect that most men will ditch their wives for
AI-animated robots and be happier for that.
Not me though: If I survive long enough, I will discard most the
circuitry that makes me a man and I will transform myself into a being
> And yet, there seems to be a man that is nothing to boast about for
> most of them... :-)
### I agree.
More information about the extropy-chat