I respond:

5. Obviously there is a chance that an A.I. could have consciousness and we would not be able to detect it, for various reasons. Assuming that the A.I. could communicate with us, however, I think the Turing Test would probably reveal whether or not the A.I. was truly conscious. There are weaknesses to the test, but it’s the best we have. Animals are a different story because of the lack of communication. Then again, even a communicating machine might have consciousness that we don’t recognize because of our anthropomorphic views.

6. Agreed

10. The main point of this one for me was the conscious evolution at the molecular level – altering the actual genetic material. From a biological perspective, I don’t think in this age that war or religion engineers evolution. Perhaps from a “social evolution” perspective. They certainly change genetic populations, but I don’t think any actual positive selection of any genotypes or phenotypes occurs because of either, today at least.

But I agree with your sentiment toward religion.

14. True true. I was thinking a little more short term. I don’t think there’s any way in Hell we’ll make it another 5 billion years for the Sun to burn out. Call me pessimistic.

15. I agree wholeheartedly. I still maintain hope that reason might one day rule.

23. I agree. My own personal wish is that some simple math, some simple rule, will be discovered that explains the higher order. I also wish for the Universe to be truly deterministic, only because that would make more sense to me – more intuitive. But I am not a physicist so I can only accept what their data tells them and they describe to me. Otherwise, I would be acting like a creationist disparaging evolution because they don’t understand it.

Cheers!

A couple of comments by the numbers:

5. Artificial Intelligence have consciousness… How would you know? Is it possible to tell the difference between an extremely sophisticated SIMULATION of consciousness and actual consciousness?
I think not.
We know that WE have consciousness, but only from direct experience. Scientists still disagree on whether animals have consciousness as we would understand it. And if we can’t agree on whether a cat is a conscious being or a biochemical device that only looks like it is intelligent, how could we ever determine this in a machine?

6. Replication/simulation of consciousness: Terms may be misleading. AI programs already simulate human consciousness – just not very well. They can get better with sophistication. Replication in these terms is really just simulation.
Since consciousness arises from the biological structure of our brains, you cannot “transfer” this in any way. The best you could hope for would be a realistic simulation. It wouldn’t be YOU, though, just an inorganic “copy.”

10. Engineering our evolution. We can and do, just not through intellectual investment or rational thought. Instead, our evolution is engineered by war and cultural pressures. Of these two, only war has a component of reason since the army with the best weaponry – or the cleverest leaders – may have the best chance of winning.. It would be nice if we took a more logical approach, but religion will always prevent that.

14. Can we save the planet? From ourselves, perhaps, with concerted effort. However, even the earth has a limited lifespan which will not be overcome: we’re not going to move the earth to another sun when this one burns out.

19. Population control. Population will be limited, ultimately, by famine, pandemic and war.
Each of those on its own is capable of wiping out billions of people.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but once again RELIGION is the force that will ensure that no logical, reasonable steps will ever be taken toward a sustainable population level. Therefore, only natural forces (including war) will be at work.

23. The Parallel Universe Paradigm. I try to remind myself that these ideas come from our attempts to create mathematical constructs to help us understand the universe. However, a mathematical model can have beautiful symmetry, explain everything, and still be completely wrong.
It is equally possible that we are missing a much simpler explanation of the universe – one that involves no parallel dimensions/universes/alternate realities… something as simple as “shit runs downhill.” We may well be missing the proverbial forest for the trees.

Thank you for an entertaining article.