It's definitely not for everyone and I get that. The appeal is difficult to express. It's a quirky, campy mess that somehow works. Plus it's thoroughly British. I had never really thought about how the show was received critically, but just did a check and was surprised at the high scores. IMDB, RT and Metacritic all score it well.
I only dislike it so much because I hated to see Tennant's run come to an end. On reexamination, The 10th Doctor takes the last bit of his remaining time to interfere in the timelines of those closest to him (with the exception of Rose). He saves Mickey and Martha and Sarah Jane's son. He passes on information to help Jack, and he gives Donna a winning lottery ticket. The last specials with Tennant dealt with his inability to alter fixed points in time. I now see the end as him meddling in the timelines of those closest to him as he saw fit before regeneration. Maybe that was obvious, or I am reading to much into it.
After watching several reruns of Star Trek Voyager on BBC America, I have come to realize I missed more than the handful of episodes that I remembered. The latter seasons were far better than I recalled the show being. Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
[video=youtube;Sv_hGITmNuo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv_hGITmNuo[/video] Mark Hamill voicing Han Solo.
I had completely forgotten The Rock had a guest role on Voyager and that he fought a girl. Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
I’m ready Ready Player One while finally finishing Season 2 of West World. So which is most feasible, and likely (and first): 1. Virtual reality that entirely immersive. I won’t spoil anything, but I think I can safely describe RPO’s tech: goggles use lasers to draw directly on to the retina, and wearable tech can apply force generally anywhere to simulate touch, resistance, and others that produce odors to bring all senses into false reality. 2. Androids so life like they blew through the Turing test half a century ago, but they are used entirely for a play ground where those that can afford it treat their world ... however they see fit. And then eventually they become conscious and the treat those who could afford it anyway the androids want.
The first option will be far more feasible and likely, imho. i think lifelike androids are a looooong way away, but I can see virtual reality setting in in the not too distant future.
VR. No question. Mainly due to how far away we are from androids indistinguishable from humans, not to mention the whole consciousness bit.
Consciousness will come before the robot body that can hold it will come. And unless you can make a fleshy material that covers the android that is actually alive and warm, they will always have that problem of being able to be found out simply by touching them. Now, replicants from Bladerunner, being biological "androids" will be far more likely.
I am not with the idea that conscious code is absolutely possible. There is more to consciousness than intelligence. Dolphins are intelligent, but I don’t think they know they are dolphins. And if they do, they haven’t taken a lot of steps to change that. Humans are aware we are humans, and what we’ve done with that knowledge is to try and turn ourselves into gods. That’s consciousness. And it arose through evolution. Code doesn’t evolve. It doesn’t mutate. It doesn’t replicate without being programmed to replicate. And that’s not evolution, because evolution isn’t predictive, but that code is predictive. And even with the development of code that is evolving, sometimes in deterimental ways, sometimes not, the code is applied to individuals. And individuals don’t evolve, populations do. We will see highly intelligent and learning pieces of software. But that isn’t consciousness. It might not matter, but it might.
I asked a dolphin once if he thought he was human and he said, "eh-eh, eh-eh" and shook his head. I believe float is wrong here.
seems like a good time to revisit this https://www.theonion.com/dolphins-evolve-opposable-thumbs-1819565718
If AI developed, it would be so alien as to allow float wiggle room to reasonably argue it wasn't really AI. Life's shitty like that.
Dolphins may not know themselves as "dolphins" but they know what a "dolphin" is and will treat their kind differently than any other sea creature, including the porpoise which is in a separate family of the same order and is very similar in most respects. Dolphins will also recognize dolphins from their pod versus a foreign one, indicating nuanced behavior based on social interactions. Additionally, similar to chimpanzees and humans, young males will separate from social groups and go on murderous and highly violent rampages which is a ongoing problem with mammalian intelligence.
Chances are, it will develop past needing consciousness. Dr. Susan Schneider (faculty member of the Yale Technology and Ethics group): I liken the path of AI to be more of a nuanced ant colony. It doesn't have deep understanding and unwieldy emotional thought processing that more often gets in the way than it helps. It does employ cognition and it does so ruthlessly. It cares about the objectives which are colony survival and expansion. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why places like Yale, Google, etc are starting to place an emphasis on philosophy and higher-ordered thought for comp sci and AI development. Why? Because many people invariably view humans as highly flawed, inefficient, illogical, erratic drains on natural resources. If AI ever comes to pass, it's going to give mankind some pretty hard pills to swallow if we haven't already choked on that wisdom ourselves by that point.
So now it's going to get really sticky: Is consciousness an aspect of humanity that simultaneously contributed to but is also detrimental to mankind's evolution?
We're all just bits in a computer simulation anyways. So we're no more conscious than the algorithms we create.
