This is how you reproduce a human, not how you create them.
I have to quibble with you on this one. A reproduction is what you get when you put a piece of paper in a copy machine. In order to REproduce something, it needs to have been produced before. Each human being is unique. You are not a reproduction of anything that previously existed.
EDIT: Sorry, I'm reading along and seeing that you and angelica are already going over this.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Angelica, I'm certainly not trying to minimize your contributions to creating your children, particularly what they became after being conceived! I've been hurriedly trying to address a very complicated issue and certainly didn't mean to imply that you (or any parent) is just some innocent bystander in the creation of life. They certainly are not.
I understand. I'm trying to see where we so greatly diverge in terms of ethics towards theoretical emotionally intelligent machines. My role as a channel in bringing forth unique creation is something I take seriously, and you can be sure if it were a thinking, feeling machine, with any semblance of consciousness, I'd have some serious ethics issues to face. But that's just me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have to quibble with you on this one. A reproduction is what you get when you put a piece of paper in a copy machine. In order to REproduce something, it needs to have been produced before. Each human being is unique. You are not a reproduction of anything that previously existed.
EDIT: Sorry, I'm reading along and seeing that you and angelica are already going over this.
Feel free to contribute at any time! Excellent point, by the way.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The algorithm is your point. Your point is that the algorithm is rigid. Input is input, and cannot be a determinator of output without an algorithm (even in a computer). Only an algorithm can process that input, and the algorithm is either rigid or it is not.
But... the algorithm is different for everyone. Why?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Go ahead, dust off that abacus if it makes you feel better
i dont know how to use an abacus ive got no problems with computers in general. im just wondering why, if you think the chief reason humans are different from animals is their thought processes which demand special consideration and treatment, a computer that would have the same thought processes would not deserve that same treatment. sure we "created" them, but in a sense we "create" our children too and we're not allowed to kill a 6 year old if we decide they aren't what we want.
Well, that's where you and I part ways then. Even if nature has a will, nature is well within its rights to cause pain and despair to her creations, including us humans. Why? Because nature (or God or whatever) defined those rules and therefore may dictate them however it likes and for whatever purpose it chooses. To suggest otherwise is to place yourself on equal footing with that which created you to which I ask: can you create it?
The same applies to man-made machines. Their very morality is dependent on our own creation, whereas your morality is not my creation, nor is mine yours. We are subject to a morality defined by nature. A self-aware machine is subject to whatever morality we define for it.
The ethical issues that surround man-to-machine are the ethical issues of a God, not the reciprocal issues that surround man-to-man ethics. The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
Well, that's where you and I part ways then. Even if nature has a will, nature is well within its rights to cause pain and despair to her creations, including us humans. Why? Because nature (or God or whatever) defined those rules and therefore may dictate them however it likes and for whatever purpose it chooses. To suggest otherwise is to place yourself on equal footing with that which created you to which I ask: can you create it?
The same applies to man-made machines. Their very morality is dependent on our own creation, whereas your morality is not my creation, nor is mine yours. We are subject to a morality defined by nature. A self-aware machine is subject to whatever morality we define for it.
The ethical issues that surround man-to-machine are the ethical issues of a God, not the reciprocal issues that surround man-to-man ethics. The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
To create, or not to create?
:eek:
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You don't, most likely. I can't think of any identity or morality that can't be programmed. However, I can think of billions of identities and moralities that were formed completely independent of those computers.
ah ha. so you're acknowledging that there are probably limits to what computers are capable of?
I have to quibble with you on this one. A reproduction is what you get when you put a piece of paper in a copy machine. In order to REproduce something, it needs to have been produced before. Each human being is unique. You are not a reproduction of anything that previously existed.
I see where you're coming from and let's make something clear: I'm not talking about a human being once it's 35. I'm talking about conceiving a human being. A conceived human being is largely a reproduction of your genetic code, combined with your partner's genetic code.
Well, that's where you and I part ways then. Even if nature has a will, nature is well within its rights to cause pain and despair to her creations, including us humans. Why? Because nature (or God or whatever) defined those rules and therefore may dictate them however it likes and for whatever purpose it chooses. To suggest otherwise is to place yourself on equal footing with that which created you to which I ask: can you create it?
The same applies to man-made machines. Their very morality is dependent on our own creation, whereas your morality is not my creation, nor is mine yours. We are subject to a morality defined by nature. A self-aware machine is subject to whatever morality we define for it.
The ethical issues that surround man-to-machine are the ethical issues of a God, not the reciprocal issues that surround man-to-man ethics. The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
To create, or not to create?
But I as far as I know nature doesn't have morals. Can you point to something that suggests otherwise? We do possess morals. If I created you would it be alright for me to treat you in any manner I choose? That doesn't seem right. It's wrong to cause pain because we know the feeling. We know it would be wrong to cause it. Being a creator doesn't take away the feelings that make it wrong.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
gue: hello hi there
gue: hows things? ok, hows things with you?
gue: alright. i'm nearly finished reading the logic vs emotion thread in its entirety wow, that's impressive ... all in one fell swoop? that thread is all over the place
gue: yeah. being its so long, i didn't want to make an innappropriate reply like i did at the end of the free will thread
gue: in terms of readability, ahnimus kicks all of your asses.
gue: lol really?
gue: hell yes i find ahnimus to be pretty tedious a lot of the time not as tedious as ffg, but he gives him a run for his money
gue: well, a***** has some issues with him, that for sure, and s***. i don't think anything he said was so hard to understand
But I as far as I know nature doesn't have morals. Can you point to something that suggests otherwise? We do possess morals. If I created you would it be alright for me to treat you in any manner I choose? That doesn't seem right. It's wrong to cause pain because we know the feeling. We know it would be wrong to cause it. Being a creator doesn't take away the feelings that make it wrong.
What I'm suggesting is that it's irrelevant when you assume the role of God, if you choose to go that route.
The issues of empathy and reciprocity apply between you and I because we are equal beings. They do not apply between you and your creator or me and my creator because we are not equal to that which created us. Being a creator certainly doesn't take away the feelings -- you created those feelings and the capacity for them in the first place!!!
gue: hello
L: hi there
gue: hows things?
L: ok, hows things with you?
gue: alright. i'm nearly finished reading the logic vs emotion thread in its entirety
L: wow, that's impressive ... all in one fell swoop?
L: that thread is all over the place
gue: yeah. being its so long, i didn't want to make an innappropriate reply like i did at the end of the free will thread
gue: in terms of readability, ahnimus kicks all of your asses.
gue: lol
L: really?
gue: hell yes
L: i find ahnimus to be pretty tedious a lot of the time
L: not as tedious as ffg, but he gives him a run for his money
gue: well, a***** has some issues with him, that for sure, and s***. i don't think anything he said was so hard to understand.
Is a***** me? I don't have issues with Farfromglorified.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
then why were my conceptions of the limits of computers' abilities so unreasonable and your s are perfectly sensible?
Because those 6 billion people have already been created. Are you suggesting that androids in fact travelled back through time to create you and me and everyone else?
What I'm suggesting is that it's irrelevant when you assume the role of God, if you choose to go that route.
The issues of empathy and reciprocity apply between you and I because we are equal beings. They do not apply between you and your creator or me and my creator because we are not equal to that which created us. Being a creator certainly doesn't take away the feelings -- you created those feelings and the capacity for them in the first place!!!
That seems monsterous to me. To create something knowing it's capacity to feel, especially pain and despair, then think that because I am above my creation, simply because I created it, that it exuses me to induce these feelings upon it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because those 6 billion people have already been created. Are you suggesting that androids in fact travelled back through time to create you and me and everyone else?
what has that got to do with the fact that you think computers have limits and so do i, but mine are wrong and yours make sense? couldn't computers in turn create something else? you're contradicting yourself. you say computers are capable of being identical to humans, but then say they have limits and cant quite be like humans. which is it?
a**** is angelica and s**** is me. we both have issues with you
Name someone who doesn't.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here's a question I'd like to see someone address:
What moral obligations do two machines have to each other?
none. i dont think computers are capable of morality. that's how this whole thing got started. you claimed they were. now you claim they're the same as us, only not really.
Your all just weird on this board. For the record I don't have a problem with anyone. I just think you all have strange ideas of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Cool. If think the exact same way there.
Definitely.
Now, let me ask another question. If we discovered that Nature does in fact "feel" or have a will, would you still say this:
No, nature doesn't conduct itself by moral codes. It is without morals, not going against it's own morals.
EDIT: Sorry, I'm reading along and seeing that you and angelica are already going over this.
I understand. I'm trying to see where we so greatly diverge in terms of ethics towards theoretical emotionally intelligent machines. My role as a channel in bringing forth unique creation is something I take seriously, and you can be sure if it were a thinking, feeling machine, with any semblance of consciousness, I'd have some serious ethics issues to face. But that's just me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
If nature has a will then I couldn't say it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But... the algorithm is different for everyone. Why?
i dont know how to use an abacus
Well, that's where you and I part ways then. Even if nature has a will, nature is well within its rights to cause pain and despair to her creations, including us humans. Why? Because nature (or God or whatever) defined those rules and therefore may dictate them however it likes and for whatever purpose it chooses. To suggest otherwise is to place yourself on equal footing with that which created you to which I ask: can you create it?
The same applies to man-made machines. Their very morality is dependent on our own creation, whereas your morality is not my creation, nor is mine yours. We are subject to a morality defined by nature. A self-aware machine is subject to whatever morality we define for it.
The ethical issues that surround man-to-machine are the ethical issues of a God, not the reciprocal issues that surround man-to-man ethics. The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
To create, or not to create?
wouldnt self aware computers that can think like humans be able to achieve this as well?
Not without you inventing the first one, no.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
ah ha. so you're acknowledging that there are probably limits to what computers are capable of?
Well, yes. A computer cannot likely create the 6 billion people we see in this world now.
I see where you're coming from and let's make something clear: I'm not talking about a human being once it's 35. I'm talking about conceiving a human being. A conceived human being is largely a reproduction of your genetic code, combined with your partner's genetic code.
But I as far as I know nature doesn't have morals. Can you point to something that suggests otherwise? We do possess morals. If I created you would it be alright for me to treat you in any manner I choose? That doesn't seem right. It's wrong to cause pain because we know the feeling. We know it would be wrong to cause it. Being a creator doesn't take away the feelings that make it wrong.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
then why were my conceptions of the limits of computers' abilities so unreasonable and your s are perfectly sensible?
gue: hows things?
gue: alright. i'm nearly finished reading the logic vs emotion thread in its entirety
gue: yeah. being its so long, i didn't want to make an innappropriate reply like i did at the end of the free will thread
gue: in terms of readability, ahnimus kicks all of your asses.
gue: lol
gue: hell yes
gue: well, a***** has some issues with him, that for sure, and s***. i don't think anything he said was so hard to understand
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What I'm suggesting is that it's irrelevant when you assume the role of God, if you choose to go that route.
The issues of empathy and reciprocity apply between you and I because we are equal beings. They do not apply between you and your creator or me and my creator because we are not equal to that which created us. Being a creator certainly doesn't take away the feelings -- you created those feelings and the capacity for them in the first place!!!
Is a***** me? I don't have issues with Farfromglorified.
Because those 6 billion people have already been created. Are you suggesting that androids in fact travelled back through time to create you and me and everyone else?
Here's a question I'd like to see someone address:
What moral obligations do two machines have to each other?
a**** is angelica and s**** is me. we both have issues with you
That seems monsterous to me. To create something knowing it's capacity to feel, especially pain and despair, then think that because I am above my creation, simply because I created it, that it exuses me to induce these feelings upon it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
what has that got to do with the fact that you think computers have limits and so do i, but mine are wrong and yours make sense? couldn't computers in turn create something else? you're contradicting yourself. you say computers are capable of being identical to humans, but then say they have limits and cant quite be like humans. which is it?
Name someone who doesn't.
none. i dont think computers are capable of morality. that's how this whole thing got started. you claimed they were. now you claim they're the same as us, only not really.
Correct. I guess it was sort of silly to try and censor it.:)
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i dont know anyone that nutty
Well I do
Your all just weird on this board. For the record I don't have a problem with anyone. I just think you all have strange ideas of reality.
i dont really have a problem with you either. i just think you have the strangest ideas of reality ive ever seen.