Creature to Energy Being

[ShachonianX]

Here is something that I came up with, after finding part of the 2001 book on the guys who made the Monoliths. The title really says what this is. It is what will happen between something transforming from a creature to a being of energy.

1. Creature
   
2. 
   
3. Partial Cyborg
   
4. 
   
5. Cyborg
   
6. 
   
7. Mostly Robotic
   
8. 
   
9. Robotic
   
10. 
    
11. Living Spaceship
    
12. 
    
13. Partially made of energy
    
14. 
    
15. Half energy
    
16. 
    
17. Mostly energy
    
18. 
    
19. Energy being
    

This could be what happens as a civilization transforms from a Type 1 to a Type V.

[EatThePath]

Beings made of 'pure energy' are, in my experience with sci-fi anyway, a purely fantasy idea with no meaningful grounding in scientific ideas, and thus no meaningful implications. What kind of energy? How is it structured in ways conducive to consciousness and action? What does any of this actually mean?

[ShachonianX]

Beings made of 'pure energy' are, in my experience with sci-fi anyway, a purely fantasy idea with no meaningful grounding in scientific ideas, and thus no meaningful implications. What kind of energy? How is it structured in ways conducive to consciousness and action? What does any of this actually mean?

Who says this has anything to do with actual science? It's just a sci-fi theory. Also, in the 2001 book, they were described as beings of star dust.

[9911MU51C]

Up to 5 I can see, but at living spaceship it seems a bit... out there. I do think we are getting closer to the robotic life era though

[ShachonianX]

Up to 5 I can see, but at living spaceship it seems a bit... out there. I do think we are getting closer to the robotic life era though

By living spaceship I mean that the robots modified themselves to become living spacecraft.

[EatThePath]

Because without any sci in your sci-fi you might as well just say they turn into elves. It doesn't have to be real science either, I'm fine with it if there is some reasoned framework that the 'energy beings' follow. There generally isn't.

[9911MU51C]

By living spaceship I mean that the robots modified themselves to become living spacecraft.

I guess that makes sense, sort of like beings that can travel into and through space

[Holo]

If you're read fine structure, you can just say that the being convert themselves into information and move house out of Alef or something like that.

[Hyomoto]

Beings made of 'pure energy' are, in my experience with sci-fi anyway, a purely fantasy idea with no meaningful grounding in scientific ideas, and thus no meaningful implications. What kind of energy? How is it structured in ways conducive to consciousness and action? What does any of this actually mean?

How is consciousness and action defined in your narrow description? To me, there is intelligence in the activity of stars, and there is most certainly action. The fact that rain falls and plants grow indicates 'consiousness' on a level we fail to recognize or understand. The only problem I've seen with 'beings of pure energy' is the idea that somehow they would maintain some semblance of their pre-existence. I would posit they have long shed those habits before having attained even the robotic state, according to this proposal.

EDIT: Do you suppose the robotic stage or pre robotic stage is the most violent? The robotic stage seems to imply the lack of human empathy and moral reasoning that tends to cause but also deter much violence. Would it not, then, be hypothetically possible that without that the 'take because need' mentality would permeate the existence? A sort of return to barbarismâ€â€cold, calculating, methodical barbarism.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Hyomoto

[EatThePath]

Holo: Fine Structure is a great example of non-real science being applied well. I'd consider it fine sci-fi, even though most if not all of the things going on it aren't covered in any way by real science.

Hyomoto: I don't have a rigorous definition of consciousness off the cuff, I don't think anyone has one that isn't in some way problematic. But if you open the definition too wide then it becomes a useless term, devoid of real meaning. Most of what you describe is to me covered under basic physical laws or automatic reaction. I wouldn't call them signs of consciousness any more than I would apply that label to human reflexes.

Even so everything you describe has some defined substance. If you say the planet, or the galaxy, or the whole universe, is alive and thinking, then I'll probably disagree no matter how much fun I've had with that idea in the past. But at least they are objects you can say something about. 'Pure energy' is nonsense without some further definition. What kind of energy? Kinetic energy? Light? Heat? Arguably matter is energy, so anything could be described as pure energy! And the typical conception of a glowing blob of bright light is none of these thigns.

Switching gears, I feel that the idea that a robotic form means lack of empathy is somewhat lacking in imagination. If your machines are such that they can contain the whole of a human mind, then surely they can emulate the human emotions. In fact I rather suspect that they need to. I recall reading about studies that found humans deprived of emotion tended to be unable to do much of anything. There may be other effective modes of thought, but I expect any uploaded humans or AIs based on human thought will need the full range of emotion to be at all functional.

[Hyomoto]

I agree with you about the term pure energy. I had simply defaulted to the sci-fi Star Trek version where upon they 'appear' on the bridge in corporeal forms to engage the crew. I recognize the method wanot defined.

As far as 'consiousness', I once again agree if you open the term too wide it becomes meaningless. However, what we see as automated reactions in a plant could very well may be the automated reaction we don't see in ourselves. So, much as you have asked pure energy to be defined, I would require consiousness be defined. Personally, I think the current reading, "Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself." as per the dictionary, means that plants do indeed enjoy consiousness. They are clearly aware of the forces of things acting upon them, and of themselves, and respond in kind. They do not build cellular phones, but 'go to sleep' when the sun fades and 'awake' when it rises, much in a familiar vein of our existence. That may or may not apply to larger forces, as we have no idea what it means to be a star. We think we know something about what they do, but just as the reasons a cat behaves the way it does eludes us, so too may the universe at large.

Therefore, all that is needed is to define the size of the consiousness. If you examine the solar level, our consiousness no longer seems relevant. We can easily be relegated to bacteria like that within our own systems, things that cause and fight infections in the larger body.

EDIT: As far as the robotics bit; according to the scale we have cyborg before robot. I have to imagine a large portion of our humanity is discarded during that time. Once the full robotic form comes up, I posit we must have made a consious decision to leave whatever was left of our humanity behind. At that level I don't think decisions are, "How do I feel about destroying this planet/asteroid/being," but rather, "We need quantity X."

Edited May 22, 2013 by Hyomoto
Missed part two

[9911MU51C]

But, by the time we become robotic, computers will be hundreds of times stronger. Stronger than human brains, and I bet they could imitate emotions (Anyone seen I-Robot with Will Smith?). If not, then robots would not feel greed either. Therefore, "humanity"/robots would all work at max efficiency together. But then there's the topic of how the machines evolve and build better machines then themselves to evolve in a way, and therefore some might turn "greedy" due to trying to use other robots resources for their own use.

ANYWAY, If this happened, would the robots try evolve and build better robots? If they aren't sentient, they won't feel the instinct need to spread and multiply. Or even to explore, unless programmed otherwise.

[EatThePath]

Consciousness: I could write a book, but probably be pretty incoherent. I'm not really interested in having a protracted conversation hinging around if plants are conscious or not. I also think it's beside the point. Something like a plant that is 'made of pure energy' is just as nonsense as something like a human, or something like a rock. What in particular your personal view of consciousnesses is has no impact on that.

Robots: We already have cyborgs today, quite a few of them, augmenting mobility, internal organs, and even senses. So far as I know, none of them have shown a marked reduction in humanity as a result of their increasingly machine-like nature.

[9911MU51C]

Robots: We already have cyborgs today, quite a few of them, augmenting mobility, internal organs, and even senses. So far as I know, none of them have shown a marked reduction in humanity as a result of their increasingly machine-like nature.

True, but I'm more talking about when we become completely artificial

[Hyomoto]

Robots: We already have cyborgs today, quite a few of them, augmenting mobility, internal organs, and even senses. So far as I know, none of them have shown a marked reduction in humanity as a result of their increasingly machine-like nature.

You may have taken the 'wide' view with this one, a more strict definition of Cyborg is almost always increasing or enhancing normal capabilities. A replacement heart because your old one is bad (with a markedly less efficient and more failure prone one), or a prosthetic leg (same) is not the form of cyborg I think is being represented here. The people currently enjoying these benefits are in lieu of more effective natural counterparts. No one would argue an iron lung is better than good ol' fashioned breathing. I also disagree when you say there is not a marked reduction in humanity, as those with prosthetics face amny kinds of predjudice. There is little envy for prosthetics, the more overt, the worse it becomes. This is obvious in the way we go about hiding them. A fake ear is designed to look like a real ear.

Examine this against a Ghost in the Machine-style cyborg. Do you preserve your humanity beneath the temptation of excellence or being irrelevant? A pure human could not perform the same duties as an 'enhanced' one, or full-fledged cyborg. Gattaca serves another perfect example, the people who were 'natural' were remarkably 'less-human'. The concept was embraced, then fought, then accepted. We've seen this in medicine. People embrace hollistic cures, not for cost, but distrust for 'new' medicines. At the same time, the quick pace at which they are being designed lends towards that distrust. In the future, this will all be forgotten. Probably no more than a paragraph in your biology textbook.

I imagine, yes, these robots may consider themselves humans but they are not what we consider humans. They may feel the kinship with us that we do a neanderthal. Given all that, I think it is perfectly plausible to believe that human emotion, or at least the version of it that we understand, would have long been dropped in favor of articulate efficiency. After all, what other purpose would there be to transition through these stages if not to overcome limitations? At what point would you argue that emotions are limits?

Edited May 22, 2013 by Hyomoto

[Brabbit1987]

While it is hard to define consciousness, scientists do know it is caused by our brain. The frontal lobe to be exact.

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/activities/lesson1_brainparts.htm

With that being said, to think that stars, plants and such have consciousness to me doesn't make any sense at all. I would also like to know where some people even come up with such stuff without any actual evidence supporting their claims.

[Hyomoto]

That's rather easy really, as EatThePath noted, it's a matter of width. You've chosen to narrow consiousness down to a byproduct of the brain. Under that definition, nothing without a brain can have consiousness. I have noted the definition for consiousness as:

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself" as defined here.

Do we know if the sun is aware of itself or the planets? Probably not. But does exhibit signs of intelligence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Much in the way some claim artificial intelligence does, we can claim it does not. It has been designed to think and act in such a way, therefore AI is the product of its creation, regardless of any presumed intellect. To agree to that is to agree humanity exhibts the same behavior, as well, we being a product of our creation. To agree to that means anything that has been created possesses the same exact intelligence. Thus, artifical can be dropped altogether and we are simply left with a larger term, 'intelligence'.

That is where the evidence lies. You can choose to agree or disagree, but it is rude to assume there is no basis for it.

[Brabbit1987]

That's rather easy really, as EatThePath noted, it's a matter of width. You've chosen to narrow consiousness down to a byproduct of the brain. Under that definition, nothing without a brain can have consiousness. I have noted the definition for consiousness as:

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself" as defined here.

Do we know if the sun is aware of itself or the planets? Probably not. But does exhibit signs of intelligence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Much in the way some claim artificial intelligence does, we can claim it does not. It has been designed to think and act in such a way, therefore AI is the product of its creation, regardless of any presumed intellect. To agree to that is to agree humanity exhibts the same behavior, as well, we being a product of our creation. To agree to that means anything that has been created possesses the same exact intelligence. Thus, artifical can be dropped altogether and we are simply left with a larger term, 'intelligence'.

That is where the evidence lies. You can choose to agree or disagree, but it is rude to assume there is no basis for it.

In all honesty, there really is no basis for it. Until substantial proof becomes available I will believe what we currently know and leave everything as entirly theory until other wise proven, which you have not done. Plain and simple.

[Hyomoto]

I agree, I have not proven anything. That was never the point of the discussion. Nor was it to be right or wrong. I have made an argument with data that supports my conclusions. Instead of attempting to win, you should focus on adding your own. Logical fallacies have no place in honest conversation. I assume you are not unfamiliar with the tenets of discussion, please do not assume everyone else is. You otherwise appear to be an intelligent individual, it is my hope you will not continue this trend.

However, as an on-topic bit, there is only theory in this whole discussion. The whole point of this discussion is theory. If you are waiting for proof that cyborgs will one day become robots, and robots will one day transcend natural limitations for corporeal forms, please feel free to provide what evidence you believe DOES exist, or at least explain why you are commenting in the first place.

[Brabbit1987]

Well I am not particularly arguing who is right or who is wrong. It's just this is a science forum, and as much as I do like theory, I at least like for it to remain some what logical. Such as, I can say bunny rabbits I believe came from mars and where once an intelligent species and they erased all proof of that ever happening. Most people would just say I am crazy. However, not a single person could actually disprove it. Just because no one can disprove it though doesn't make it anymore valid.

If we are thinking up of theories, lets try to keep it based on what we already know.

Such as, everything is already made out of energy. So I am assuming you all mean pure energy. No physical body. So then I question, why? What benefit would this offer anyone? How would your energy be contained with out mixing and spreading across the universe? This then leads you to ask ... is this even feasible? From what we currently know today, I would so no, nor would it offer any benefits at all. Also, on a genetic level, we like to keep a form fairly close to our original. The reason for this is due to social behaviors and relation. We can more easily tell emotions, mannerism and such this way. While if we where energy ... well .. there is always Elcor in Mass effect. We could state our emotions before our sentences XD.

Now keep in mind, I don't comment on these forums to cause any trouble. I am simply putting in my opinion on the matter. Just because I disagree, doesn't mean I am trying to "win". It just simply means, I don't agree. Before I agree, I would like more evidence, more theory on the matter to make your scenario a little more evident to me. If you give me a good enough explanation even I will say "OH I see!, You are right! That could very well be the case." As of yet this has not occurred though.

To me arguments and discussions are never about winning or losing, it is about gaining that much more knowledge. Matter of fact, I love to be proved wrong because, it means I learned something new. However, it's hard to do for most people since I watch so much theoretical physics , technology, universe, ...

... Lets just call it science documentaries before that list grows any larger. XD I also read ... a LOT. Maybe not particularly books, but all over the net rather.

[magnemoe]

By living spaceship I mean that the robots modified themselves to become living spacecraft.

An robot is an computer with an body. Depending on the brain size for an intelligent robot or at least an brain size the robot would want to be as smart as he could be an spaceship makes some sense.

An cyborg is an creature with an direct brain to computer interface. Has the benefit that he could run everything by thought avoiding most interface issues. Yes the robot can move its brain from one platform to another or simply network.

[Hyomoto]

Such as, everything is already made out of energy. So I am assuming you all mean pure energy. No physical body. So then I question, why? What benefit would this offer anyone? How would your energy be contained with out mixing and spreading across the universe? This then leads you to ask ... is this even feasible? From what we currently know today, I would so no, nor would it offer any benefits at all. Also, on a genetic level, we like to keep a form fairly close to our original. The reason for this is due to social behaviors and relation. We can more easily tell emotions, mannerism and such this way. While if we where energy ... well .. there is always Elcor in Mass effect. We could state our emotions before our sentences XD.

Energy is indeed at the essence of 'existence'. I would imagine the most obvious answer to 'why?' is, it is intangible. I don't think our limited scope of being really provides an adequate framing for that sort of question, hence countless amounts of bad science fiction writing. What I could propose however, is that if we did find a reason, through a technological singularity, decide to adjust our formal presence to that of the next level, in this case a 'half'(pseudo)-cyborg followed by full(committed) cyborg, there is the possibility that form too would be rendered inadequate after a time. Considering the time it takes to get from each stage to the next, this is obviously not an overnight occurrence. Perhaps the levels are: new form is embraced, enjoyed, adjusted, then discarded. Then the need to become 'pure energy' which, though we consume and output energy does not describe our present state, is merely a natural evolution of the discarding unnecessary 'waste' existence. After all, the reason for the initial transformation and embracing of technology to overcome our limits is the basis of that waste. I would go so far as to categorize most developments in culture and science as being a part of this fundamental basis, exposing and removing weakness.

Or something.

[WestAir]

What happens if we learn one day that organic matter is far more efficient at cognitive processes than electronic matter? If we learn that we can design and grow neurons in a lab that are better than both our own neurons and the best processors imaginable. What would happen to the above scale?

[Brabbit1987]

Energy is indeed at the essence of 'existence'. I would imagine the most obvious answer to 'why?' is, it is intangible. I don't think our limited scope of being really provides an adequate framing for that sort of question, hence countless amounts of bad science fiction writing. What I could propose however, is that if we did find a reason, through a technological singularity, decide to adjust our formal presence to that of the next level, in this case a 'half'(pseudo)-cyborg followed by full(committed) cyborg, there is the possibility that form too would be rendered inadequate after a time. Considering the time it takes to get from each stage to the next, this is obviously not an overnight occurrence. Perhaps the levels are: new form is embraced, enjoyed, adjusted, then discarded. Then the need to become 'pure energy' which, though we consume and output energy does not describe our present state, is merely a natural evolution of the discarding unnecessary 'waste' existence. After all, the reason for the initial transformation and embracing of technology to overcome our limits is the basis of that waste. I would go so far as to categorize most developments in culture and science as being a part of this fundamental basis, exposing and removing weakness.

Or something.

Well I suppose it's possible something like that could happen. However, the only down side to a physical body is movement. That is the only benefit that exists currently today. In which case it is hardly worth it in my opinion. You essentially would be giving up all form of your humanity. This benefit would also be eventually replaced if warp drives do in fact work as they believe. We already know it's possible to bend time and space. I also don't understand how we would even keep our consciousness if we converted ourselves to pure energy.

My definition of consciousness is being aware of yourself. When you look in the mirror, you can point to it and say that is me. You know it isn't another person. Babies are not able to do this. While I do not remember the age at which babies gain what is known as consciousness, I also know not many animals are able to do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

You can read it all if you want, but you can just scroll down to consciousness to see what I am talking about.

I imagine keeping your consciousness while even going robot, would be fairly challenging. I do assume it can be done though. Energy though ... I am not so sure.

[Hyomoto]

What happens if we learn one day that organic matter is far more efficient at cognitive processes than electronic matter? If we learn that we can design and grow neurons in a lab that are better than both our own neurons and the best processors imaginable. What would happen to the above scale?

First of all, Westair, that is hilarious and awesome. I think some of that is already apparent: our ability to gather and analyze spatial data is far beyond that of the best super computers, and it comes in a much smaller package with a lower energy requirement. If we bio-engineered super us, it would, however, still require technology. Perhaps the reason we would meld with technology in the first place, to get the best of both worlds until we decide which is redundant.

Well I suppose it's possible something like that could happen. However, the only down side to a physical body is movement. That is the only benefit that exists currently today. In which case it is hardly worth it in my opinion. You essentially would be giving up all form of your humanity. This benefit would also be eventually replaced if warp drives do in fact work as they believe. We already know it's possible to bend time and space. I also don't understand how we would even keep our consciousness if we converted ourselves to pure energy.

I think in this case, that's part of the purpose of 'change'(?). Perhaps we discover, along the evolutionary trend, that self-awareness is redundant or unnecessary. I think where I certainly agree with you here is that doing so would certainly give up what we presently see as being human. I honestly doubt that will change with any rapidity, but perhaps in the face of a great calamity it may become a necessity. Extinction versus self-identity has to be a tough call, but it's probably strong enough to force it. I would hope it be less drastic and part of our humanity then be maintained. I certainly see how it would appear pointless to be something else, and that, is a much harder debate for me to take any stance on.