logic vs feeling

1…1718192123

Comments

  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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.

    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Well, yes. A computer cannot likely create the 6 billion people we see in this world now.

    then why were my conceptions of the limits of computers' abilities so unreasonable and your s are perfectly sensible?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue: hello
    D: hi there
    gue: hows things?
    D: ok, hows things with you?
    gue: alright. i'm nearly finished reading the logic vs emotion thread in its entirety
    D: wow, that's impressive ... all in one fell swoop?
    D: 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
    D: really?
    gue: hell yes
    D: i find ahnimus to be pretty tedious a lot of the time
    D: 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
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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!!!
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    My fingers are tired.....

    Here's a question I'd like to see someone address:

    What moral obligations do two machines have to each other?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Is a***** me? I don't have issues with Farfromglorified.

    a**** is angelica and s**** is me. we both have issues with you ;)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    My fingers are tired.....

    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.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    soulsinging wrote:
    a**** is angelica and s**** is me. we both have issues with you ;)

    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.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Name someone who doesn't.

    i dont know anyone that nutty ;)
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    i dont know anyone that nutty ;)

    Well I do :p

    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Well I do :p

    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.

Categories