Logic alone cannot enable a computer to make a societal decision. It needs values programmed into it as well. So, what are the right values? — Noah Te Stroete
In an interview Norman Mailer suggested that technology is the opposite of science, and that either the Devil invited technology here, or God, in his battle against the Devil, entered into a dread compact with technology. — Brett
I think that technology is revealing something about who we are, different from what we imagine we are, or want to be.
Even without the existence of God and the rejection of a creator, we still view ourselves as this ‘golden’ creature. Even in the mode of being conscious of our destructiveness, of all our faults, we view ourselves as being still ‘golden’ because we are aware of it.
So we are still the creatures from Eden; both creatures of nature and higher understanding, constantly watching ourselves narcissistically. From that we conceive of our nature, which has created and then thrived in a co-operative society. This narcissism is evident in the issue of climate change when people talk about ‘saving the planet’. We might die but the planet will not. We conflate ourselves with the planet.
But we have reason to think well of ourselves, because that caring and co-operative nature has created a world in which we’ve thrived. — Brett
Will that nature be lost by crossing a line?
That line, wherever it is, somewhere up ahead of us, will be when we throw that inviolate idea of ourselves aside and embrace our new selves. It will most certainly be lost when we chose the alternative. Why will we chose the alternative? Because the problems we find ourselves confronted with can no longer be addressed by a ‘human’ nature. Technology is confronting us with questions about how we live and who we are that go beyond the morality we have lived with so far. Technology is also the tool we have for solving these problems. Would we turn away from that? — Brett
Because I’m not sure if everyone’s desires are good for everyone else. It may also be unrealistic to expect all your desires to be fulfilled and lead to problems down the road for others. — Brett
I don’t know if I can agree with the idea about all ideas being healthy. Yes in a healthy individual, but otherwise trouble.
8h — Brett
But can technology also solve this problem? Maybe once we agree on what healthy is. We have politicians on both sides calling their opposition mentally deranged. I don’t trust them with the power to “cure”. — TogetherTurtle
But, um, it would be we the insane who would be doing the engineering. — Jake
The ‘right’ values are the ones we chose. Feed them into the computer with all the statistics and you’ll get the ‘right’ outcome. — Brett
Your argument suggests that there is a human identity/nature ("who we are") that transcends just the description of what individual humans are doing/thinking/feeling. What do you base this nature on? — Echarmion
I am not convinced it's useful to speculate about "human nature" in a vacuum. — Echarmion
But can technology also solve this problem? — TogetherTurtle
I meant moral values in the form of “if, then” statements. Intelligent people can disagree on the “right” values. A computer would need values in order to make complex decisions. — Noah Te Stroete
Yes, that's it. Ideally we would be able to use science to re-engineer the insanity out of human beings. But, um, it would be we the insane who would be doing the engineering. — Jake
Are you doubting here, or saying it might? — Brett
I think ultimately it is up to human ingenuity to create the tech that solves our problems. — TogetherTurtle
So as we harvest the many benefits of ever more powerful technology we should keep in mind that as we do so we are traveling ever deeper in to a new era which won't be as forgiving as the past. — Jake
I agree that our new toys are more dangerous but I don’t agree on how much more dangerous. — TogetherTurtle
There are many systems in place to defend ourselves against things such as nuclear war. — TogetherTurtle
What I'm asking readers to focus on is that the knowledge explosion feeds back upon itself, and thus is accelerating. So what we'll see going forward are ever greater powers coming online at an ever faster pace. If we were to plot that line on a graph against the plodding incremental (at best) development of human wisdom and maturity we see the two lines diverging at an accelerating rate. — Jake
That's true, but you might want to read up on how many times these systems have come within an inch of failure. As just one example, during the Carter Administration somebody mistakenly inserted a training tape in to the NORAD early warning system which caused the generals to call the National Security Advisor to tell him that a Russian first strike was underway. One could write a book full of other examples. — Jake
However, the system obviously does work most of the time. What you're not getting is that this is not good enough, and powers of such vast scale require a record of perfection. A single failure of a single such power a single time is sufficient to crash the system, making all the many beneficial accomplishments of the knowledge explosion largely irrelevant. That is, the very long era when we could make mistakes, learn from them, and try again.... is over. It's not the 19th century anymore. — Jake
The technology races ahead at breakneck speed while our philosophy creeps along at it's usual glacial pace, falling ever farther behind. The fact that most people including national leaders running for President are bored by nuclear weapons should prove beyond any doubt that we simply aren't ready for the scale of powers the knowledge explosion will generate. — Jake
think it is true that our weapons will only get stronger, but at the point we're at now, does that even matter? — TogetherTurtle
The most brilliant thing about mutually assured destruction is that at the end of the day, a person or persons has to turn the key. — TogetherTurtle
You are correct in saying that both sides of the cold war had their close calls, but at the end of the day, what always stopped them from going that extra step? — TogetherTurtle
but it is almost impossible to find someone who will launch them. — TogetherTurtle
I don't know if bored is the right word. Apathetic may be. I think that they have just become part of the consciousness of the masses. That and the knowledge that if it happens we will be dead soon anyway breeds a sort of apathetic attitude. — TogetherTurtle
It's not just weapons, but any power of sufficient scale to crash civilization. And yes, it matters. The more powers of such scale which are in play, the greater the chance that one of them will slip from our control. — Jake
The President can order a massive strike without consulting with anybody. A single person who has lost their mind a single time, game over. — Jake
Luck. Forgive the pun, but it's a game of Russian roulette. The argument of the group consensus (which you are articulating well) is that the bullet chamber has always been empty before, so it will always be empty in the future too. But that's not how Russian roulette works, and not how reality works either. — Jake
Sorry, but you appear to know nothing about the training that launch officers get. I heard a story on NPR just a few days ago about a launch officer who merely asked "who double checks the president?" and he was drummed out of the service and is now driving a truck for living. The whole MAD system demands on each side having high confidence the other side will launch. Anybody who shows a hit of doubt is shown the door. — Jake
And yet the airways are filled to overflowing with endless worry about a billion smaller things. — Jake
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.