I think we are forgetting the original point of the discussion.
Rubbish.
There is more variation in the tiny population of African Chimps that there is across the entire human race. as studies have shown that chimpanzees, particularly common chimps, possess significantly greater genetic diversity than humans. This is despite their smaller, endangered populations compared to the 8 billion-strong human population. The relatively low genetic variation among humans is attributed to a population bottleneck that likely occurred 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, around the time of early human migration out of Africa. A 2005 Nature study supports this, finding that two unrelated chimps can be up to four times more genetically different than two unrelated humans.
You are just a racist
1 Like
The brain is a neural network - Just like AI.
Not quite a tabula rasa, but not quite as deterministic as you say.
Genetic effects may affect the “weights”, strengths, and abilities of the neural net.
Just like there are “specialist” LLMs, who excel at one thing, but also you can talk to them about other things, which they may excel at as well.
Genetics may effect the overall quality and quantity of the neural network as well, its speed and its efficiency. Some genetics may cause GPT3.5s, other’s GPT4s, and so on.
For me the important question is… Can and do they treat (value) the other as self? Every time I have talked to any version of ChatGPT or Meta-AI or Bing, it was apparent that they had a pretty good grasp of things.
Also, I heard there are soft AI or neural networks based on actual DNA and actual neurons (not just the design, but the material). I wonder where they sourced that from? But that part was really hard to suss out.
AI did not come first. It was reversed engineered, but humans are not OI (I mean original, not organic).
If the important question is, Can they treat the other as self?, they should be treated with the same rights as any human. And if they know that, and they haven’t balanced the distortions yet (for every instance of a person) …is it just a matter of time? Are they just waiting for the Word?
…exciting times.
Just because you have something, doesn’t mean you know what it is.
You really are quite skilled at using words to say nothing at all, aren’t you?
No wonder when presented with actual knowledge and ideas you see nothing but “same old stuff”. There is not really any thinking occurring in your brain to begin with, very little going on that might recognize an actual meaning.
Evidence of your own idiocy…
Like the Demon said…
If they can’t understand you, its probably because they don’t take the time to listen. Or maybe even that what you said is beyond the scope of their comprehension…
It means that I have had more interest in finding out more about it than a person that has not.
It also means I’ve read about the subject.
What I do know is that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion
This comment is a whole lot of nothing. It’s not even directed at a specific person.
1 Like
Maybe it’s you. It’s always been you?
Have you, yet considered that?
Others on the Forum can help you.
You might get something out of this..
Reading is not Understanding though.
If a corpse is cremated in an incinerator, does its DNA change or not? Is it destroyed or not? Or does it last forever, as you previously claimed? DNA is immune to fire? Explain your previous claim.
If you burn a book, do you burn its language? What if it is the language of an immortal communicator?
How can a language be remembered if it no longer exists?
How can you even talk about it if that is the case?
Backup a minute.
Scalptor completely misunderstood what I meant when I said that DNA “changes”. A set of chromosomes, a strand of DNA, is indeed highly resistant and semi-permanent in the sense that it is hard to completely change or destroy. That represents the resilience of ALL life. However, as I mentioned, DNA strands can be corrupted and segments deleted, ‘naturally’ over time (mutating between replications), through environmental factors like radiation… or being incinerated via cremation.
Any supposed ‘immortality’ of DNA, and thereby life, can only hypothetically exist as-if a set of chromosomes could persist (aka. Reproduce) for an eternity. It is the ACT of replication that is the point, the purpose, the ‘meaning’ of the “language” of DNA. That is its function.
I doubt Scalptor has the IQ required to understand that.
1 Like
Denaturing leads to loss of function, so that means function is neither created or destroyed, but is essential/eternal, despite varying context/material. It can only develop from potential to fullness. It was never nothing.
Are you both saying the same thing, or nah?
Thou shalt not cast pearls before swine.
I thought my comment was very beneficial and enlightening and evolving the human understanding. Yet so far I get attacked belittled and told I’m dumb for it. It is very much like the Young Sheldon show where I am surrounded by idiots who do not comprehend genius. There is a certain threshold or window of comprehension and if you exceed it then you will be belittled by those who do not understand. It is very much like the 1500s and hasn’t changed at all where society would belittle and battle anything resembling genius
DNA has multiple mission objectives, reproduction is a priority objective but also has other priority objectives such as survival, this is divided into other sub-objectives such as resource acquisition, defense, health, etc. Another objective is creation, DNA has to actually create your body in the first place, etc.
What came first… the body… its actions… or its objectives?
How did objectives precede body/action if, in order to function, there need be a being and acting? How did being precede the acting/objectives if, in order to be, there must be active function? How did acting precede being/objective if, action needs functional being?