How would you design a Humanoid?

[Someone here]

Science is advancing rapidly .in the near future we  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 we design a Human that is better suited for the future?  Can we alter the internal death instinct that drives Humanity to destructive
self and social tendencies to destroy his own kind ? Like we can 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 

Are we  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 ?

[CARDOZZO]

@Someone here Neuralink + Nano-Robots + AGI + Data-Driven Health + Biohacking + Bio-Engineering.

2030 will be fucking awesome and scary at the same time.

I'm thinking about how this forum will be in 2030. 

Robots getting enlightened, meditating and arguing with their Gods (Humans).

[Someone here]

11 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

Neuralink + Nano-Robots + AGI + Data-Driven Health + Biohacking + Bio-Engineering.

2030 will be fucking awesome and scary

Sorry you have to explain to me what these things are ..I have no idea about em

[Reciprocality]

I would not give it any inputs the rejection of which would not be inconsistent.

That is, I would only give it inputs the equivalent of which in us would be axioms the rejection of which would amount to inconsistencies.

And therefore at last, self-subsistent axioms, only on top of these could an AI truly learn anything for itself and develop in any way like a human.

 

The most intuitive such axioms are any of the sufficient ones for modelling dimensionality upwards to at least the five we can understand intuitively, the problem with these axioms is that we can chose which to use in our model of dimensions, placing them in this nomansland of both necessity and accidence. 

Or in concrete terms, we may create a model of four dimensions by usage only of the nature of circles, we may use only lines, only intersections, only triangles, them all together or the way they relate to one another, we have so many choices because there is no actual ground, I don't know if a computer would operate from a notion of something extra-logical that is not a true ground for the rest of the system such as in our case.

 

Could it ever be able to interpret images through nothing but an algorithm which runs on non-contradiction and an arbitrary set of geometric axioms? It wouldn't derive any knowable meaning from this alone, it would need to form additional conclusions on its own from non-mathematical axioms, so to inquire into the possibility for this we ask: from what are OURS notions of ideas/essences made? To which my answer would be in approximation to inborn ideals, but how does one program a computer to conceive such a thing without referring it to acquired information? Big problem right there, and I think it is impossible but I am open for suggestions.