logic vs feeling

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

'When the doors of perception are cleansed, everything will appear to man as it is, infinite'
William Blake

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

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?

Ask the Blade Runner.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

'When the doors of perception are cleansed, everything will appear to man as it is, infinite'
William Blake

I LOVE this quote.