I don't. I think you are a fine poster. A credit to the AMT.
Forgive me for remaining skeptical. :cool:
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
i dont really have a problem with you either. i just think you have the strangest ideas of reality ive ever seen.
Cool, but I don't think you understand my idea of reality.
It's not really that strange.
Look at my sig. Clarence Darrow is just one of many people. Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, B.F. Skinner, Voltaire. There are plenty.
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
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.
But you already did that when you created it, abook. You can't have it both ways. You can't be responsible and not responsible for your creation at the same time.
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?
I'm not sure computers can travel in time and create us in the past, that's why it doesn't make sense to me.
And yes, computers can in turn create something else. Whether or not computers can create humans, however, is something I'm a bit skeptical about.
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?
I never said computers are capable of being identical to humans. They wouldn't be computers at that point, would they?
none. i dont think computers are capable of morality. that's how this whole thing got started. you claimed they were.
Any self-aware being is capable of morality, yes.
now you claim they're the same as us, only not really.
Soulsinging, just because things have attributes in common with you doesn't mean they're the same as you. If you want to put words in my mouth, try the ones I've actually used.
Cool, but I don't think you understand my idea of reality.
It's not really that strange.
Look at my sig. Clarence Darrow is just one of many people. Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, B.F. Skinner, Voltaire. There are plenty.
understand what you say on here. einstein believed in god and morality. i know little about hawking and dont much care. skinner ive studied somewhat, and i dont think you're saying the same things he did. but whoever it is, ive got plenty of heavyweights on my side too if you want to go dropping names
I'm not sure computers can travel in time and create us in the past, that's why it doesn't make sense to me.
And yes, computers can in turn create something else. Whether or not computers can create humans, however, is something I'm a bit skeptical about.
I never said computers are capable of being identical to humans. They wouldn't be computers at that point, would they?
what does travelling in time or creating humans have to do with any of this? i dont recall mentioning either of those.
you said computers can be every bit the same as humans instead of thought and moral capablities and interaction. i fail to see your grounds for subsequently drawing any sort of distinction between how we ought to treat them and how we ought to treat each other.
Soulsinging, just because things have attributes in common with you doesn't mean they're the same as you. If you want to put words in my mouth, try the ones I've actually used.
so the only distinction you draw between future computers and human beings now is that we invented the computers and they did not invent us?
But you already did that when you created it, abook. You can't have it both ways. You can't be responsible and not responsible for your creation at the same time.
But I gave it free will, just as we all have.
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
understand what you say on here. einstein believed in god and morality. i know little about hawking and dont much care. skinner ive studied somewhat, and i dont think you're saying the same things he did. but whoever it is, ive got plenty of heavyweights on my side too if you want to go dropping names
That's right Einstein did believe in God, but he didn't believe in free-will. Hawking also believed in God but didn't believe in free-will.
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner
"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner
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
Hehe...I know you did. But that doesn't absolve you. There's no Original Sin belonging to the robot anymore than there's an Original Sin belonging to you.
That machine, regardless of its form, is your creation. Every despair it can experience is experienced by your design, even if it's arrived at it by the machine's choice.
So I'll say it again:
The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
Hehe...I know you did. But that doesn't absolve you. There's no Original Sin belonging to the robot anymore than there's an Original Sin belonging to you.
That machine, regardless of its form, is your creation. Every despair it can experience is experienced by your design, even if it's arrived at it by the machine's choice.
So I'll say it again:
The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
To create, or not to create?
But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.
Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?
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
But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.
Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?
I think you're drifting into the area of natural law. There are different schools of thought on this, as I've been reading. The "atheist/morals" topic also seems to be moving in this direction.
But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.
If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.
Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?
Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:
Nature does nothing uselessly
Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:
That man and God are equal
So, can you create God? Can you create Nature? Can you give rise to that which gave rise to you?
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.
I note that you say "a conceived human being is largely a reproduction of your genetic code, combined with your partner's genetic code". When we go past reproduce, we hit upon create. I fully understand that humans reproduce on the generic scale. Two humans reproduce a new human. And once we take a close-up of that, even purely during/at conception, an entirely new creation comes into being. This newly created being is entirely an individual unto itself, complete with it's own very unique DNA. I'm well aware of my part in having created on that level, both in being humbled by my smallness in it all, while also revelling in the seeming unending ramifications that continue to echo forth from such creation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.
Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:
Nature does nothing uselessly
Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:
That man and God are equal
I agree 100%.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.
Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:
Nature does nothing uselessly
Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:
That man and God are equal
Do you believe man and "God" are not equal?
I'm getting the impression you are saying that if you have the wherewithal to create a machine that feels emotion that you are entitling yourself to "godliness" in terms of your "ethical" treatment of said machine.
Personally, I believe there is a perfect balance in life, no matter how it appears to us. And at all times. I also see that within this perfect balance we will not be able to build machines that truly emote and feel until we have evolved enough to be able to cope with that reality. And I don't mean in a utopian way, but in a realistic way with positives and negatives. We're clearly not there yet. Ultimately, in my view, our current psychic states get us exactly what they get us. We cannot yet create and support such technology. It's great that we are imagining such possiblities and stretching our minds and evolving towards such ideas.
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Robert Browning
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes. "God" is man's creator. Man is not possible without "God", but "God" is possible without man.
I'm getting the impression you are saying that if you have the wherewithal to create a machine that feels emotion that you are entitling yourself to "godliness" in terms of your "ethical" treatment of said machine.
Yes, but keep in mind this does not make man "God", it makes man "God" of machines. It's very important distinction.
Personally, I believe there is a perfect balance in life, no matter how it appears to us. And at all times. I also see that within this perfect balance we will not be able to build machines that truly emote and feel until we have evolved enough to be able to cope with that reality. And I don't mean in a utopian way, but in a realistic way with positives and negatives. We're clearly not there yet. Ultimately, in my view, our current psychic states get us exactly what they get us. We cannot yet create and support such technology. It's great that we are imagining such possiblities and stretching our minds and evolving towards such ideas.
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Robert Browning
This is cool. However, I'm a bit afraid that the bolded contention may prove slightly incorrect. The "will not be able to" may prove to be a "should not".
Yes. "God" is man's creator. Man is not possible without "God", but "God" is possible without man.
okay
Yes, but keep in mind this does not make man "God", it makes man "God" of machines. It's very important distinction.
I agree. At the same time, I question your ethics regarding treatment of said machines. Although I'm confident that should we evolve to a place where it is an issue, theoretically, you'll have evolved as well. edit: again, I am back to Abook's assertion that we create children and machines, and are therefore responsible for such creations and the consequences for not upholding our responsibilities. I take my responsibilites and my ethical purposes very seriously.
This is cool. However, I'm a bit afraid that the bolded contention may prove slightly incorrect. The "will not be able to" may prove to be a "should not".
Oh, I fully mean "will not be able to". Within this Divinely intelligent universe, everything happens for a reason. And everything that does not happen "does not happen" also for a reason. I get most people do not see that. I also assert that once one does get it, one cannot go back to "not getting it". Hence my faith in the perfection and balance. And hence the fact that I'll question my own egoistic awareness before I question that perfect inherent-to-life balance.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree. At the same time, I question your ethics regarding treatment of said machines. Although I'm confident that should we evolve to a place where it is an issue, theoretically, you'll have evolved as well.
I can pretty much assure you that I will have no problem unplugging the self-aware machine once it's created. Actually creating it, however, is the ethical joker in this deck.
Oh, I fully mean "will not be able to". Within this Divinely intelligent universe, everything happens for a reason. And everything that does not happen "does not happen" also for a reason. I get most people do not see that. I also assert that once one does get it, one cannot go back to "not getting it". Hence my faith in the perfection and balance. And hence the fact that I'll question my own egoistic awareness before I question that perfect inherent-to-life balance.
I agree with this, but the issue I spoke of above extends from the fact that we are part of this balance, not its owner. And that means those reasons are not necessarily our own. Which begs the question: for what purpose will we create these machines? It very well may prove to be not our purposes for which they're created. The design may certainly be our undoing.
I can pretty much assure you that I will have no problem unplugging the self-aware machine once it's created. Actually creating it, however, is the ethical joker in this deck.
I realize there are a ton of variables in unplugging an emotional machine, none of your own that I feel remotely adequate in judging. This considering you are the same person who was more compassionate than most when my dog died, noting how sometimes they can mean more to us than people and therefore their deaths can hit hard.
If you are talking about the general development of these machines, as for the ethical joker in the deck, there's no such thing--it's all intelligence. Life is intuitive. When we're ready, we'll develop the technology. When we're not, we won't. For example, a crucial necessity in such creation is understanding emotional intelligence. For the average person to study the topic and to come to truly undertand, their ethical awareness will advance significantly to begin with. If you mean your individual ethics issue will be with assuming responsibility for such a machine in the first place, point heard. Also, point heard if you are referring to the at-times unchecked human ego and it's possible lacking ethics upon desiring the god-like power by creation of such machines (and the far-reaching ramifications).
I agree with this, but the issue I spoke of above extends from the fact that we are part of this balance, not its owner. And that means those reasons are not necessarily our own. Which begs the question: for what purpose will we create these machines? It very well may prove do be not our purposes for which they're created. The design may certainly be our undoing.
It's clear to me when we struggle to move forth that we only do so when we find ways to propel ourselves forth. We are not able to get ahead of ourselves, because when we have the illusion of doing so, we are overlooking the parts of us that are stuck, lagging far behind, in dissociation. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, here, though. Are you pointing to the fact that we might have one intent in creating them, but that we also have those issues we are unaware of that will manifest and that we will experience through such creation--ie: learning a very hard way to temper our power-hungry egotism?
As for our undoing, that's a perception from our ego-self-separated view. As people, we might become "undone". From the perspective where we live our lives but exist far beyond our lives, it's a moot point. We are and are not the Source of our lives at the same time.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I don't. I think you are a fine poster. A credit to the AMT.
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.
Forgive me for remaining skeptical. :cool:
Cool, but I don't think you understand my idea of reality.
It's not really that strange.
Look at my sig. Clarence Darrow is just one of many people. Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, B.F. Skinner, Voltaire. There are plenty.
But you already did that when you created it, abook. You can't have it both ways. You can't be responsible and not responsible for your creation at the same time.
I'm not sure computers can travel in time and create us in the past, that's why it doesn't make sense to me.
And yes, computers can in turn create something else. Whether or not computers can create humans, however, is something I'm a bit skeptical about.
I never said computers are capable of being identical to humans. They wouldn't be computers at that point, would they?
Any self-aware being is capable of morality, yes.
Soulsinging, just because things have attributes in common with you doesn't mean they're the same as you. If you want to put words in my mouth, try the ones I've actually used.
understand what you say on here. einstein believed in god and morality. i know little about hawking and dont much care. skinner ive studied somewhat, and i dont think you're saying the same things he did. but whoever it is, ive got plenty of heavyweights on my side too if you want to go dropping names
what does travelling in time or creating humans have to do with any of this? i dont recall mentioning either of those.
you said computers can be every bit the same as humans instead of thought and moral capablities and interaction. i fail to see your grounds for subsequently drawing any sort of distinction between how we ought to treat them and how we ought to treat each other.
so the only distinction you draw between future computers and human beings now is that we invented the computers and they did not invent us?
But I gave it free will, just as we all have.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
For starters, yes. Everything else would depend on how that machine is constructed. Obviously if that computer looks like this:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/misc/JSCTrip/spider.jpg
or this
http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/images/Urbot-UAV.jpg
or this
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/06/p1020332.jpg
or this
http://images.scotsman.com/2006/07/07/2006-07-07T084700Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKOE-UK-CHINA-ROBOT.jpg
other distinctions would certainly have to be accounted for.
That's right Einstein did believe in God, but he didn't believe in free-will. Hawking also believed in God but didn't believe in free-will.
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner
"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner
Hehe...I know you did. But that doesn't absolve you. There's no Original Sin belonging to the robot anymore than there's an Original Sin belonging to you.
That machine, regardless of its form, is your creation. Every despair it can experience is experienced by your design, even if it's arrived at it by the machine's choice.
So I'll say it again:
The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:
To create, or not to create?
But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.
Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think you're drifting into the area of natural law. There are different schools of thought on this, as I've been reading. The "atheist/morals" topic also seems to be moving in this direction.
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.
If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.
Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:
Nature does nothing uselessly
Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:
That man and God are equal
So, can you create God? Can you create Nature? Can you give rise to that which gave rise to you?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Do you believe man and "God" are not equal?
I'm getting the impression you are saying that if you have the wherewithal to create a machine that feels emotion that you are entitling yourself to "godliness" in terms of your "ethical" treatment of said machine.
Personally, I believe there is a perfect balance in life, no matter how it appears to us. And at all times. I also see that within this perfect balance we will not be able to build machines that truly emote and feel until we have evolved enough to be able to cope with that reality. And I don't mean in a utopian way, but in a realistic way with positives and negatives. We're clearly not there yet. Ultimately, in my view, our current psychic states get us exactly what they get us. We cannot yet create and support such technology. It's great that we are imagining such possiblities and stretching our minds and evolving towards such ideas.
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Robert Browning
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes. "God" is man's creator. Man is not possible without "God", but "God" is possible without man.
Yes, but keep in mind this does not make man "God", it makes man "God" of machines. It's very important distinction.
This is cool. However, I'm a bit afraid that the bolded contention may prove slightly incorrect. The "will not be able to" may prove to be a "should not".
I agree. At the same time, I question your ethics regarding treatment of said machines. Although I'm confident that should we evolve to a place where it is an issue, theoretically, you'll have evolved as well.
Oh, I fully mean "will not be able to". Within this Divinely intelligent universe, everything happens for a reason. And everything that does not happen "does not happen" also for a reason. I get most people do not see that. I also assert that once one does get it, one cannot go back to "not getting it". Hence my faith in the perfection and balance. And hence the fact that I'll question my own egoistic awareness before I question that perfect inherent-to-life balance.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
William Blake
I can pretty much assure you that I will have no problem unplugging the self-aware machine once it's created. Actually creating it, however, is the ethical joker in this deck.
I agree with this, but the issue I spoke of above extends from the fact that we are part of this balance, not its owner. And that means those reasons are not necessarily our own. Which begs the question: for what purpose will we create these machines? It very well may prove to be not our purposes for which they're created. The design may certainly be our undoing.
Ask the Blade Runner.
If you are talking about the general development of these machines, as for the ethical joker in the deck, there's no such thing--it's all intelligence. Life is intuitive. When we're ready, we'll develop the technology. When we're not, we won't. For example, a crucial necessity in such creation is understanding emotional intelligence. For the average person to study the topic and to come to truly undertand, their ethical awareness will advance significantly to begin with. If you mean your individual ethics issue will be with assuming responsibility for such a machine in the first place, point heard. Also, point heard if you are referring to the at-times unchecked human ego and it's possible lacking ethics upon desiring the god-like power by creation of such machines (and the far-reaching ramifications).
It's clear to me when we struggle to move forth that we only do so when we find ways to propel ourselves forth. We are not able to get ahead of ourselves, because when we have the illusion of doing so, we are overlooking the parts of us that are stuck, lagging far behind, in dissociation. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, here, though. Are you pointing to the fact that we might have one intent in creating them, but that we also have those issues we are unaware of that will manifest and that we will experience through such creation--ie: learning a very hard way to temper our power-hungry egotism?
As for our undoing, that's a perception from our ego-self-separated view. As people, we might become "undone". From the perspective where we live our lives but exist far beyond our lives, it's a moot point. We are and are not the Source of our lives at the same time.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!