9) If the logical outcome is eventual chaos, what would be the point of developing more new knowledge, given that it would likely be swept away in that chaos? — Hippyhead
On my side, I was/am interested in getting continuously enough scientific knowledge (thru my experiments and analyses after graduation) to just gain my daily bread — KerimF
I believe what you are describing is called "the technological singularity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity — Philosophim
The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity[1]—is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization
We don't know with any kind of certainty that the logical outcome is eventual chaos. — ChatteringMonkey
Even if that would be the eventual outcome of "the process of knowledge accumulation", knowledge is not a singular thing. Some types may be dangerous, some not so much etc... — ChatteringMonkey
And even if we were to assume that such a general conclusion can be meaningful, it doesn't follow that this should be the only perspective a human being living here and now should take. — ChatteringMonkey
That said, I find this interesting largely because it may illustrate how the group consensus, even that of the very brightest and most highly educated people, could be horribly wrong. — Hippyhead
What I'm ignorant of is the pointlessness of worrying about things which are probably inevitable and beyond anyone's control. — Hippyhead
Sure some may have it wrong, but most are probably well aware of the dangers... and take a pragmatic attitude on it — ChatteringMonkey
It's not one or even a group of scientists driving this process. It's countries locked in geopolitical struggles and companies in market struggles with eachother who pump huge amounts of money in these things... the rest follows. This is beyond anyone's control and probably inevitable... if it happens — ChatteringMonkey
If we are well aware of the dangers, why do we continue down the same path as fast as we possibly can? What is pragmatic about largely ignoring thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats? Seems like the definition of insanity to me. — Hippyhead
If I had to bet money on this right now I would lay my bet on the notion that we are trying to build a
highly globalized technological civilization for the first time, and getting such huge things right on the first try is typically unlikely. If one takes a long enough view, everything may work out in the end. — Hippyhead
I hear you. Not arguing with that, except the "if it happens" part. Doing anything about this may very well be impossible, agreed. But we are great philosophers :-), so we're supposed to try. — Hippyhead
Therefor you need to have a dialogue and agreements on it at an international level. — ChatteringMonkey
1) Science is an effective tool for developing knowledge.
2) Knowledge often delivers power to edit our environment, which is typically why we seek it.
3) Knowledge development feeds back on itself, resulting in an ever accelerating rate of knowledge development.
4) An ever accelerating rate of knowledge development results in an ever accelerating development of new powers.
5) Thus, science gives human beings new powers at an ever accelerating pace.
6) Human maturity and judgment advances at an incremental pace at best, if at all.
7) To illustrate the above, imagine a car racing down the highway at ever accelerating speeds, while the driver's skill increases maybe a little bit now and then.
8) If the above is true, what is the logical outcome?
9) If the logical outcome is eventual chaos, what would be the point of developing more new knowledge, given that it would likely be swept away in that chaos? — Hippyhead
7) To illustrate the above, imagine a car racing down the highway at ever accelerating speeds, while the driver's skill increases maybe a little bit now and then.
8) If the above is true, what is the logical outcome?
9) If the logical outcome is eventual chaos, what would be the point of developing more new knowledge, given that it would likely be swept away in that chaos? — Hippyhead
If the outcome is 'chaos' (assuming we don't have chaos prior to the 'addition of chaos') why blame the car? — Mayor of Simpleton
It's no secret that our proficiency in logic, individual and collective, exceeds our combined wisdom and thus the state of the world - on the event horizon of global catastrophe. — TheMadFool
This accounts for the quantitative aspects of knowledge, but not the qualitative aspects - the relational structure of knowledge. — Possibility
I believe these tools will give a voice for the "Silent Majority" and thereby: — Chris1952Engineer
It's not really an elitist stand point, but one that simply acknowledges that some folks who have indeed studied the fields of science will have notions and opinions that out weigh the notions and opinions of those without such acquired knowledge. — Mayor of Simpleton
... that scientists have a built in bias towards the acquisition of ever more knowledge, ... — Hippyhead
If anything the acquisition of more knowledge via scientific methods is itself the prevention of a bias. — Mayor of Simpleton
All that said, scientists are not evil. They are human beings doing the job we hired them to do, and they very reasonably prioritize their kids college education over the fate of civilization etc, which as parents is also their valid job. — Hippyhead
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.