logic vs feeling

1…1718202223

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Of course.

    Yes, of course. Now, does that make whatever caused that tsunami immoral? Why or why not?
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Now I completely agree with you (maybe minus that whole Divine part, but whatever). Note the original post:



    (Consider the context of this discussion -- man wholly creating self-aware machines.)

    Is there not a difference here? Man did not invent man. Nature did. We participate in the process by reproducing ourselves into, as you say, unique beings, but we do so by Nature's rules for such creations, not our own. Even when we do things like IVF and cloning, we're still doing this consistent with Nature's rules, not inventing new ones. This is going to bring us to a very important moral difference between dealing with men and dealing with machines, but requires we get to moral reciprocity first. Can you hold tight for a second?
    I see what you are saying. At the same time, I point again to the applicable dictionary definitions. Due to my choices I gave rise to the creation of humans. They were constructed where they otherwise would not have been, due to my will (and a lot of Divine happenstance, including nature). Had I not created these children when and how I did, they would not otherwise exist! I'm super aware that all of my processes come from forces far beyond myself. I am the channel. I still see my will as being crucial in my having specifically created (again, with help) these beings. There is a reason that I am a crucial part of the miracle of life, and in such creation. My will and choices are a stunningly miraculous part of life, too. I'm not just an egotist trying to hoard credit here! I clearly differentiate between generic reproduction (which is a stunning concept, itself) and the creation of my specific 100%, undeniably unique, individual children including the unique circumstances of their mind-boggling creation.

    I look forward to weaving this in with the creation of emotional machines.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes, of course. Now, does that make whatever caused that tsunami immoral? Why or why not?

    No, nature doesn't conduct itself by moral codes. It is without morals, not going against it's own morals.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    No, nature doesn't conduct itself by moral codes. It is without morals, not going against it's own morals.

    Why?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why?

    Because nature doesn't feel. It's a force that creates.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Because nature doesn't feel.

    Are you sure?
    It's a force that creates.

    Yes. And, in this context, so are we.
  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why?
    When our sun burns out in a billion years, or the next time an asteriod hits, remind me to to tell nature its not morally right. :rolleyes:

    Nature is brutal dude.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    When our sun burns out in a million years, or the next time an asterioid hits, remind me to to tell nature its not morally right. :rolleyes:

    :rolleyes: indeed.
    Nature is brutal dude

    To us, yes.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Are you sure?

    I haven't seen any signs pointing out any different but I never rule things completely out.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes. And, in this context, so are we.

    But I know that we do have feelings and morals.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    angelica wrote:
    I see what you are saying. At the same time, I point again to the applicable dictionary definitions. Due to my choices I gave rise to the creation of humans. They were constructed where they otherwise would not have been, due to my will (and a lot of Divine happenstance, including nature). Had I not created these children when and how I did, they would not otherwise exist! I'm super aware that all of my processes come from forces far beyond myself. I am the channel. I still see my will as being crucial in my having specifically created (again, with help) these beings. There is a reason that I am a crucial part of the miracle of life, and in such creation. My will and choices are a stunningly miraculous part of life, too. I'm not just an egotist trying to hoard credit here! I clearly differentiate between generic reproduction (which is a stunning concept, itself) and the creation of my specific 100%, undeniably unique, individual children including the unique circumstances of their mind-boggling creation.

    I look forward to weaving this in with the creation of emotional machines.

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I haven't seen any signs pointing out any different but I never rule things completely out.

    Cool. If think the exact same way there.
    But I know that we do have feelings and morals.

    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.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    hippiemom wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    If nature has a will then I couldn't say 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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. That would make it equally flexible.



    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    If nature has a will then I couldn't say it.

    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?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    An identity and morality independent of me or you, for starters.

    wouldnt self aware computers that can think like humans be able to achieve this as well?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    wouldnt self aware computers that can think like humans be able to achieve this as well?

    Not without you inventing the first one, no.

Categories