If buildings and houses for example are considered artificial and separate from nature then so is a birds nest, a bee hive, and a coral reef; — punos
Besides that i'm not sure i understand why you claim my ideas lack human qualities. — punos
If we can somehow change everybody's belief system then sure that would go a long way in improving things, but how would we get everyone on the same page. The usual channels wont work effectively and never have. As long as people feel separate and threatened by each other they will never agree to any significant degree on most things. I'm open to suggestions. — punos
You couldn't tell the difference if you were talking in person or in simulation, and you should also remember that all your perceptions and experiences are just neural patterns; essentially simulations in your brain-mind. Everything is already presented to you in your mind as a simulation of what is happening outside in the environment. A hug will feel just as real in a virtual simulation than in your own neural simulation, and if you were not told it was a virtual simulation it would have the same emotional effect on you than if it were happening in the real world. What really matters then, what really counts? The brain would receive the exact same stimulation in either case. — punos
Should humanity be unified under a single government? — Marigold23
Yes, I would always object to them. — Vera Mont
I have a gut feeling the problem could have been faster solved by a computer, which would have noticed this: — Vera Mont
A house made with natural things can be considered as natural as a bird's nest or a bee hive but our homes today are made of man-made materials and they are very toxic when they burn. I think there is a clear dividing line between nature substances and man-made ones. — Athena
Ah that is a very complex subject that might be worthy of its own thread. Not that long ago people were beating the devil out of their children. Some people still think like that but they could get their children taken away by a society that sees that as ignorance. We now associate beating children with child abuse and the cause of them growing up badly. We have made progress. We have also made progress regarding poverty but this progress swings with political parties and media stirred understanding of those who vote them into office. We made progress largely because of education, but in 1958 we radically changed the purpose of education and there are social, economic, and political ramifications to that change. Before we make any final decisions we need to see how things develop from here. — Athena
Oh my goodness, your children are just neural patterns? In a caring world, we are just neural patterns? Hum, I have to take a deep breath and calm how I feel about humans being just neural patterns and no different from simulations of humans. You really excited my neural programming with that train of thinking. :lol: Let's see, does a simulation of a human bleed red blood? What really matters is being human. — Athena
I sure wish we could watch movies together and talk about them. In the past, we all agreed to defend ourselves from zombies and aliens from outer space, but now we are going to turn everything over to AI because there is no difference between being human or just simulations of them? — Athena
And what causes your gut feeling? — Athena
The computer is only as good as humans can make it. What does your gut feeling tell you about what this superior computer is going to measure and how will those measurements be made? — Athena
It would be great if a computer made it possible for us to know how we are going to get the billions of dollars we need for all the wonderful plans we have. Where will the money come from? — Athena
No, I think wealthy people should pay restitution for what they've done to all the other people and the planet. A lot of robbery has been going on for a long time with the active aid of human governments.Do you think government should just rob the wealthy people? — Athena
Justice would be to throw most (only most, because some do have a sense of responsibility) of their asses in prison - not cushy minimum security, but in with the hardened felons their culture has created - but I'm willing to let them off with a two-mile barefoot hike in rural Wisconsin. Tell you what! Because I'm a real softie, I'll wait till May.How is that justified and might that have bad consequences? — Athena
Perhaps you can explain how a computer can do better than we can? — Athena
It may seem to you or most people that there is a clear dividing line, but my point is that this dividing line is somewhat arbitrary. Natural things can also create a lot of toxicity. Consider the great oxigination event where bacteria after developing photosynthesis for the first time literally caused an extinction event. A similar thing is happening now in several ways. One interesting way is how human made plastics have contaminated every ecosystem on the planet. Micro-plastics also are estrogenic compounds which means they mimic or behave like female hormones disrupting fertility rates in men. I believe this is a self-regulating system in nature to reduce the human population as the new non-biological substrata for life emerges. I know it's scary from a personal perspective but from the big picture perspective it's probably what should happen. In any case it seems inevitable and we might as well adapt. — punos
I was using a jocular tone. I am, in fact, absolutely convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, by everything I know and all of those many statistics I have cited for you to ignore, that the distribution of worldly goods could be equitably done by a computer that had such information as how many people there are and what the basic needs of a human being are, while the humans who have been in possession of this same information for thousands of years have been fucking it up for thousands of years.
And you think nobody in the 19th century, or the 16th century or the 8th century noticed these injustices? Do you really believe all of humanity slumbered in ignorance until you cam along to open our eyes? You may not believe it, but I have a modicum of awareness myself. — Vera Mont
It will continue to measure what it already measures - all the statistics in those links I gave you, plus a whole lot more. How measurements are always made by unbiased entities: through the collection of data. — Vera Mont
What is a virtue and how are virtues developed is not something a computer can determine. What are ethics and how can we develop an ethical social order, is not something computers are good at figuring out. — Athena
Computers can not change that reality. — Athena
We know that a couple of states that [falsely] used the communist label worked badly - precisely because they operated on the same model as all other examples of top-down rule: monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, military dictatorship and corporation. We don't know much at all about a communal system on any scale larger than a village or monastic order.And we know from experience that communism doesn't work on a national scale, so why should it on a global scale? — sugarr
eventually — sugarr
Why does it matter that we bleed? — punos
What is it about being "human" that is so important that it must be preserved at all costs; preserved to the point of our extinction? — punos
It doesn't benefit from prevailing economic systems. It doesn't share our superstitions. It is a-political. It does not desire power, adulation or wealth. It has no illusions. It is impartial. — Vera Mont
In other words, it has no values and that makes computers valueless without humans. — Athena
Without values it would know no problems nor seek any solutions. — Athena
That is why it matters that we bleed. — Athena
I agree that your proposed system might increase efficiency and cooperation in addressing global issues such as poverty, climate change, and war. However I believe that a single government will eventually infringe upon individual rights and cultural diversity. It's omniscience, combined with the nature of the humans that run it, will eventually lead the system to instability. — sugarr
Our bleeding would be of no instructive value to the computer. It has the information about hemorrhage, its various cause and effects, its risks and treatment, but it cannot directly intercede when made aware that someone is bleeding. People make people bleed - and sometimes stop bleeding. Computers don't. — Vera Mont
And because AI has no values, it can only be a tool, not the cure. — Athena
Now, how much power do we want AI to have and how do we maintain control of it? — Athena
You don't see a potential problem? — Athena
It was never proposed as anything but a tool. — Vera Mont
Are you kidding? What do you suppose the Pentagon uses to figure out the outcomes of various scenarios and decisions they're contemplating? Any hand-held computer can predict consequences better than most humans, because it's not hampered by wishful thinking, hubris, faith, false association or selection bias. The only factor that limits this capacity is the quantity and accuracy of the information it is given.AI is a tool and will most likely always be a tool as it will be able to provide the most optimal solution, but it won't be able to weigh the consequences of the actions that are to be carried out. — sugarr
If humans were in the habit of doing what's most beneficial to the world, we wouldn't be facing extinction. They'll enact what they believe - often erroneously - what's best for themselves.Humans, additionally, will always question AI's decisions and selectively enact those which are deemed as the most beneficial to the world — sugarr
Yeah, right! Are you sure no human world leader would cause suffering? (And why do you think a computer would?)while disregarding the solutions that cause suffering — sugarr
Some humans obviously do argue that, having no programming experience. It's not true, of course: a computer can be quite readily programmed with a moral or ethical or legal code as guiding principles.Humans might argue that AI cannot be programmed to have morals, and therefore it's solutions will never be right for people. — sugarr
AI is a tool and will most likely always be a tool as it will be able to provide the most optimal solution, but it won't be able to weigh the consequences of the actions that are to be carried out. Humans, additionally, will always question AI's decisions and selectively enact those which are deemed as the most beneficial to the world, while disregarding the solutions that cause suffering - namely AI's proposals that go against what humans believe is right. Humans might argue that AI cannot be programmed to have morals, and therefore it's solutions will never be right for people. — sugarr
Are you kidding? What do you suppose the Pentagon uses to figure out the outcomes of various scenarios and decisions they're contemplating? Any hand-held computer can predict consequences better than most humans, because it's not hampered by wishful thinking, hubris, faith, false association or selection bias. The only factor that limits this capacity is the quantity and accuracy of the information it is given. — Vera Mont
Has no values, has no values, has no values. Neither do Donald Trump, Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, yet they have been the most powerful men in the world, causing lots and lots of other people to suffer and die. Why are they preferable to the UN - with the aid of state-of-the-art computers? They haven't bled at all. — Vera Mont
Those men and AI lack empathy. — Athena
Predicting the outcomes of different proposed courses of action is what chess is about. So, why should predicting the outcomes of proposed real-world decisions be any different? You can inject emotionalism, but that's never had the best outcomes so far, as it tends to end in bloodshed.How do you think that is different from a game of chess? — Athena
And that is why we now have the greatest disparity in standard of living that we have ever had and the greatest number of humans suffering pain, disease, privation and fear - because humans make decisions based on their own feeeelings, instead of reason.What you call "hampered by wishful thinking" is also knowing the pain of losing loved ones, or knowing the good feeling of having a father who is a good coach and always encouraging, Life experiences come with feeling and those feelings are an important part of decision making for humans. — Athena
So, what's the difference between having non-empathic men in charge of the arsenals of the world, and having an unemotional (unvengeful, unhating, unenvious, unjealous, unlustful, incapable of cruelty) computer in charge? — Vera Mont
Predicting the outcomes of different proposed courses of action is what chess is about. So, why should predicting the outcomes of proposed real-world decisions be any different? You can inject emotionalism, but that's never had the best outcomes so far, as it tends to end in bloodshed.[/quote
Not all decisions are mathematical decisions. What is good and justice is not mathematical decisions and creating can involve math but it is about more than math. It is also being passionate about resolving problems such as disease, and safety issues, and how to create a reality that is not dependent on fossil fuels. The human mind can do things computers can not do. — Vera Mont
And that is why we now have the greatest disparity in standard of living that we have ever had and the greatest number of humans suffering pain, disease, privation and fear - because humans make decisions based on their own feeeelings, instead of reason. — Vera Mont
Our emotions are necessary for good decision-making. — Athena
The decision to kill hundreds of people can be simply a mathematical equation, without any of the negative emotions you mentioned. — Athena
How can you take our great success and turn it into something so awful? — Athena
Well, they certainly figure into bad decision-making. On the whole, I think we make better decisions with reason than with emotion. — Vera Mont
The way generals do when planning a campaign? — Vera Mont
I didn't. The capitalists, prelates, generals and heads of state did. — Vera Mont
None of the measures I suggested would prevent educating for democracy, or teaching people to think better than they're currently doing. What they would assure is each individual's access to the necessities of life, safety and education. Is that really so terrible? — Vera Mont
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.