Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GaryLouisSmith]

My my, the first line in Chapter II of Moonchild sounds rather like something that GaryLouisSmith would say!

“THERE is little difference - barring our Occidental subtlety – between Chinese philosophy and English,” observed Cyril Grey. “The Chinese bury a man alive in an ant heap; the English introduce him to a woman.”

Yes, I love that line. Beyond that, I'll work on the idea of Occidental subtlety.

[Sculptor1]

You are talking the exact type of nonsense that I mentioned.

Tell it to Stephen Hawking level minds that its nonsense.

You have not a clue what AI is.
All AIs are is a collection of algorithms coded by humans. AI is not "more intelligent" since they have no volition, intention or self purpose.

That's what AIs are now, that is not what they are working on.

When your fantasy world comes to pass get back to me.
Until then stop watching Terminator films late at night.

[chewybrian]

It is not nonsense to consider that AIs, if more intelligent than us, will be a threat.

You are talking the exact type of nonsense that I mentioned.
You have not a clue what AI is.
All AIs are is a collection of algorithms coded by humans. AI is not "more intelligent" since they have no volition, intention or self purpose.

Does a Roomba 'intend' to keep the carpet clean, or does an automatic lawn mower 'intend' to keep the grass at a certain level? No, but, the intent can be effectively programmed in. When the machines can maintain and replicate themselves, then there is little limit to what they might be able to do once we put them on course. So, even if they never develop their own unfortunate intentions, these can be programmed into them. Just substitute 'kill all the Asians' for 'keep the grass under 5 inches tall'. They can be created to act as if evil.

Will AI ever be more intelligent than humans? I don't know. But they are certainly faster, more accurate and effective at completing the interim work, most manual labor, calculations and such to complete a difficult task. A computer can complete calculations in a moment that would take a man a lifetime or more to figure out.

They may or may not develop their own intentions, though in a sense, one could program them to seek their own intentions. That seemingly neutral starting point could spiral out of control in many unforeseen ways. The machine may lack evil intent, but the effect of what it 'thinks' are benign acts might be worse than any evil we've seen from man so far, and that is really saying something. Either way, it seems very naive to assume there is nothing to fear.

[Sculptor1]

You are talking the exact type of nonsense that I mentioned.
You have not a clue what AI is.
All AIs are is a collection of algorithms coded by humans. AI is not "more intelligent" since they have no volition, intention or self purpose.

Does a Roomba 'intend' to keep the carpet clean, or does an automatic lawn mower 'intend' to keep the grass at a certain level? No, but, the intent can be effectively programmed in. When the machines can maintain and replicate themselves, then there is little limit to what they might be able to do once we put them on course. So, even if they never develop their own unfortunate intentions, these can be programmed into them. Just substitute 'kill all the Asians' for 'keep the grass under 5 inches tall'. They can be created to act as if evil.

Will AI ever be more intelligent than humans? I don't know. But they are certainly faster, more accurate and effective at completing the interim work, most manual labor, calculations and such to complete a difficult task. A computer can complete calculations in a moment that would take a man a lifetime or more to figure out.

They may or may not develop their own intentions, though in a sense, one could program them to seek their own intentions. .

This is tantamount to a contradiction in terms.
Terminator and Skynet is a fantasy.
We have humans to fear, no the machines they programme.

[h_k_s]

Are Artificial Intelligence and religious belief incompatible? Are religious people rebels against Big Brother watching us? Should humanity be in rebellion against the AI future we see coming? Or is it the religious mentality that has brought us to this surveillance culture? Is God the Big AI Machine in the Sky?

A/I and religion have nothing in common.

A/I is simply a computer program written by a human who was/is either theist, atheist, deist, or agnostic.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Are Artificial Intelligence and religious belief incompatible? Are religious people rebels against Big Brother watching us? Should humanity be in rebellion against the AI future we see coming? Or is it the religious mentality that has brought us to this surveillance culture? Is God the Big AI Machine in the Sky?

A/I and religion have nothing in common.

A/I is simply a computer program written by a human who was/is either theist, atheist, deist, or agnostic.

I agree, but many people do think that once people are educated in the ways of science that religion will disappear.

[h_k_s]

A/I and religion have nothing in common.

A/I is simply a computer program written by a human who was/is either theist, atheist, deist, or agnostic.

I agree, but many people do think that once people are educated in the ways of science that religion will disappear.

Once people become scientists, and become well versed in evolution and astronomy, they do tend to become agnostic, yes.

But not all do.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I agree, but many people do think that once people are educated in the ways of science that religion will disappear.

Once people become scientists, and become well versed in evolution and astronomy, they do tend to become agnostic, yes.

But not all do.

Yes, not all. I am a theist and I know evolution and astronomy well. As do many others.

[chewybrian]

Does a Roomba 'intend' to keep the carpet clean, or does an automatic lawn mower 'intend' to keep the grass at a certain level? No, but, the intent can be effectively programmed in. When the machines can maintain and replicate themselves, then there is little limit to what they might be able to do once we put them on course. So, even if they never develop their own unfortunate intentions, these can be programmed into them. Just substitute 'kill all the Asians' for 'keep the grass under 5 inches tall'. They can be created to act as if evil.

Will AI ever be more intelligent than humans? I don't know. But they are certainly faster, more accurate and effective at completing the interim work, most manual labor, calculations and such to complete a difficult task. A computer can complete calculations in a moment that would take a man a lifetime or more to figure out.

They may or may not develop their own intentions, though in a sense, one could program them to seek their own intentions. .

This is tantamount to a contradiction in terms.
Terminator and Skynet is a fantasy.
We have humans to fear, no the machines they programme.

I don't know what you are pointing to as a contradiction.

Terminator is probably fantasy in the sense of travelling back in time. But, programming a robot to kill selectively is plausible, and the U.S. and China and others are probably already on the way to making this a reality.

There are three dangers here. First, this technology will be turned into a weapon, as most technology has been throughout history. It is a danger in the hands of the wrong people. But, certain weapons are inherently dangerous, and don't always require a human intent to be dangerous. Their very existence is a danger. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons fall in this category. AI is dangerous in this way, that it can create horrible accidents without intent. Say the AI is told to protect and assist humans, and tries to kill mosquitoes to stop the spread of disease. It accidentally kills all the bees and sets off a terrible famine. There is also a frightening possibility of terrorists or foreign powers turning our AI against us with new forms of computer viruses or malware.

[Mark1955]

First I would like to say that I see you are a fan of David Hume. Do you have any ideas you would like to share about his view on cause and effect? I call myself a Humean in that regard, though I not follow him into subjectivism.

As I said I think Hume shows that cause and effect is an erroneous assumption; essentially I agree with his argument in the way he presented it. It doesn't really serve any purpose if I copy and paste the paragraphs form his book.

Anyway, I'm a theist and I guess you could say I have a positive view on religion. You aren't and you don't, apparently. I'll bet you did not grow up in a religious environment, otherwise you would know that religious people LOVE to argue - with anybody and everybody - especially with each other. Look at Christianity. Actually there is no such thing as Christianity. No one single Christianity. From the beginning there have been many Christianities. Arguing heavily. And condemning each other to Hell. It's fun. I'm Christian, but not a pathetic New Age peace and love Christian. I learned from my holly-roller, Pentecostal, Jesus-name-only grandmother how to attack. I'm just saying that the only "stifling" that religious people do is jam the opposition's face in the spiritual mud. That's how we Heathen-haters work. It's the atheists who don't like to argue and just want to be left along. Back in the 1970s, I was an unrelenting in-your-face f*ggot activist. No one had any peace. I'm still at it. So do you want to argue about Hume? Or do you want to be like most atheists and forego the chance?

Firstly I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic. I'm perfectly willing to accept that a god or gods of some sort, with more or less powers as described by one of the worlds current or past religions in the manner followed by one or more of the sects, cliques or other factions may exist. My problem is that as you say religious people like an argument and thus they offer me so many god[s] and ways to worship and penalties for not worshiping and rewards for worshiping correctly that I can only ask them all one question. Why should I believe you and not someone else. Since I've yet to have a convincing answer I suspect they are all talking rubbish. In other words if there is a god I'm pretty sure none of you have got it right.

It doesn't matter which side I approach religion from emotional or rational. Rationally there is no evidence that I find believable from any contender and emotionally I have no passion for belonging to an organisation that is so divisive and intellectually limiting. I could say 'god has spoken to me and said "Teach everyone that they must make up their own minds and leave other people alone to do the same thing"', but I know I'd be lying.

[GaryLouisSmith]

First I would like to say that I see you are a fan of David Hume. Do you have any ideas you would like to share about his view on cause and effect? I call myself a Humean in that regard, though I not follow him into subjectivism.

As I said I think Hume shows that cause and effect is an erroneous assumption; essentially I agree with his argument in the way he presented it. It doesn't really serve any purpose if I copy and paste the paragraphs form his book.

Anyway, I'm a theist and I guess you could say I have a positive view on religion. You aren't and you don't, apparently. I'll bet you did not grow up in a religious environment, otherwise you would know that religious people LOVE to argue - with anybody and everybody - especially with each other. Look at Christianity. Actually there is no such thing as Christianity. No one single Christianity. From the beginning there have been many Christianities. Arguing heavily. And condemning each other to Hell. It's fun. I'm Christian, but not a pathetic New Age peace and love Christian. I learned from my holly-roller, Pentecostal, Jesus-name-only grandmother how to attack. I'm just saying that the only "stifling" that religious people do is jam the opposition's face in the spiritual mud. That's how we Heathen-haters work. It's the atheists who don't like to argue and just want to be left along. Back in the 1970s, I was an unrelenting in-your-face f*ggot activist. No one had any peace. I'm still at it. So do you want to argue about Hume? Or do you want to be like most atheists and forego the chance?

Firstly I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic. I'm perfectly willing to accept that a god or gods of some sort, with more or less powers as described by one of the worlds current or past religions in the manner followed by one or more of the sects, cliques or other factions may exist. My problem is that as you say religious people like an argument and thus they offer me so many god[s] and ways to worship and penalties for not worshiping and rewards for worshiping correctly that I can only ask them all one question. Why should I believe you and not someone else. Since I've yet to have a convincing answer I suspect they are all talking rubbish. In other words if there is a god I'm pretty sure none of you have got it right.

It doesn't matter which side I approach religion from emotional or rational. Rationally there is no evidence that I find believable from any contender and emotionally I have no passion for belonging to an organisation that is so divisive and intellectually limiting. I could say 'god has spoken to me and said "Teach everyone that they must make up their own minds and leave other people alone to do the same thing"', but I know I'd be lying.

My only reason for replying to you, other than the David Hume thing, was to set you straight about your idea of religion stifling people thoughts. I just wanted to let you know that argument is right at the heart of every religion I have ever encountered, especially Christianity. If you ever do want to argue philosophy or theology, let me know. I love to argue - in a friendly, intellectual manner of course. I see that you are afraid of organizations and you get nervous when too many people come at you all with different ideas about what to believe. It might be better if you just stayed back and let the chaos take place outside your room. There's no reason why you have to brawl with the brawlers.

[Mark1955]

My only reason for replying to you, other than the David Hume thing, was to set you straight about your idea of religion stifling people thoughts. I just wanted to let you know that argument is right at the heart of every religion I have ever encountered, especially Christianity. If you ever do want to argue philosophy or theology, let me know. I love to argue - in a friendly, intellectual manner of course. I see that you are afraid of organizations and you get nervous when too many people come at you all with different ideas about what to believe. It might be better if you just stayed back and let the chaos take place outside your room. There's no reason why you have to brawl with the brawlers.

Well, what a load of condescending crap and yet you haven't answered the core question - why amidst all the competing claims should I think you're talking more sense than anyone else.

[Sculptor1]

This is tantamount to a contradiction in terms.
Terminator and Skynet is a fantasy.
We have humans to fear, no the machines they programme.

I don't know what you are pointing to as a contradiction.

Terminator is probably fantasy in the sense of travelling back in time. But, programming a robot to kill selectively is plausible, and the U.S. and China and others are probably already on the way to making this a reality.

Yes humans are a problem. But this is exactly the point I am making.

There are three dangers here. First, this technology will be turned into a weapon, as most technology has been throughout history.

Seriously I doubt if there is much practical difference between a drone strike directed by an operator, or one directed by a CPU, if you are a wedding party in Afghanistan.

It is a danger in the hands of the wrong people. But, certain weapons are inherently dangerous, and don't always require a human intent to be dangerous.

True . But were do you stand on the right to bear arms??

Their very existence is a danger.

True . But were do you stand on the right to bear arms??

Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons fall in this category. AI is dangerous in this way, that it can create horrible accidents without intent. Say the AI is told to protect and assist humans, and tries to kill mosquitoes to stop the spread of disease. It accidentally kills all the bees and sets off a terrible famine. There is also a frightening possibility of terrorists or foreign powers turning our AI against us with new forms of computer viruses or malware.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Well, what a load of condescending crap and yet you haven't answered the core question - why amidst all the competing claims should I think you're talking more sense than anyone else.

You may be the last person on earth who insists on things making sense. One's subconscious desires control. Advertizing has made us what we are. It is everywhere and everything. Religion is a consumer product that is suppose to appeal to your deep subconscious, not your reason. And the capitalist overload on our senses is of the essence. None of it makes sense, but we understand perfectly. You seem to live in a Utopian Dream World of Reason.

[Mark1955]

Religion is a consumer product that is suppose to appeal to your deep subconscious, not your reason.

Well you failed, as I explained earlier, because emotionally I'm not attracted to the things religions do. In particular their arrogant assumptions of superiority, which you are reinforcing with every sentence you type.