The r3vlimited philosophical discussion thread

[Guest]

We have never had a really good philosophical discussion so I thought I would start one. Feel free to disagree with anything said and thrown in your own ideas and questions. Please be mature and avoid critisizing other people's ideas.

Here is something I have been thinking a lot about lately:

In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, stated that transistor density of computer chips doubles every 24 months. Although there is more to computer processing power than just transistors, in it's most basic terms Moore was saying that every 2 years computer technology doubles. This is known as Moore's law and as of October 2006, it has held true. Scientists and mathematicians predict that sometime in the 21st century, technological innovation will be moving so fast exponentially, that it will eventually culminate in a "technological singularity". What this means is that technology will progress an extreme amount in a very small amount of time and this will in turn create a paradigm shift in technological advancement. Scientists have predicted this paradigm shift to be AI, or Artificial Intelligence.

I personally think that the advent of AI will be a bad thing for humans but necessary to continue the evolutionary process. Call me crazy if you want but I think that man made machines, with endless intellectual capabilities, could very possibly be the next evolutionary step. I don't think that this kind of change will happen like it did in Terminator or Matrix with the machines waging war and taking over. I think that it will be a gradual process with genetic engineering and nano technology effectively evolving humans into titanium skeleton, super computer, cybersapiens.

So what are your thoughts on AI? Will it be a good thing or a bad thing? What will it mean for human beings?

[permit]

If the AI looks like Arnold, I'm all for machines waging war.

We're going to become extinct at some point, I doubt it'll be from something like AI though.

[rede30]

I personally don’t believe in evolution to the degree you are talking about. I also don’t believe a machine will be more complex than a human body. For one, the machines will not be able to birth which would be a step lower than human and why would the next step in evolution be lower?

[92 mtechnic cabrio]

Hypothetically speaking,

They may not be able to have babies and stuff, but, humans take nine
months to have a baby. They could build more of themselves in a matter of days. And they would be able to build full grown versions of themselves, not babies like humans would have to.

[h0lmes]

I personally don’t believe in evolution to the degree you are talking about. I also don’t believe a machine will be more complex than a human body. For one, the machines will not be able to birth which would be a step lower than human and why would the next step in evolution be lower?

Good point but machines can be manufactured. They can also be pre-programed with everything needed to be an "adult" machine. This would effectively do away with babies, addolescents and teenagers. I think that would be an evolutionary step up.

[Iain]

My philosophy is to drink so much beer that I don't care anymore.

I'll probably die long before then anways, so it's of no matter to me.

[Jand3rson]

It almost sounds corny, and maybe it's because I've see too many movies, but the advent/threat of AI does scare me to a degree. Sure, movies like with scenarios like Terminator 2 (with the guy Dyson working at Cyberdyne developing the AI from the remains they found of the first terminator), he says at one point "how were we supposed to know"? That right there is the quintessential problem with humans and the ability/need to keep pursuing and further developing technology. At what point does automation replace the need for human effort? For decades, countless people have lost their jobs to automation in the production industry, and it continues even more as technology progresses. I mean, look at some of the things we have currently. Even simple things like the Roomba, that little robot that vacuums your floor on it's own. Sure, the thing operates solely on sensors, but how close are we really getting? How many "cloak and dagger" little projects are major technological firms operating under government funding cooking up?

The fact of the matter is, you have to stop and think about how plausible AI really is. The first is the most obvious, computer programs cannot operate unless programmed to do so. Everything uses and algorhythm, and whether that program is made to start up at a certain time and brew coffee, or to fold protiens, it isn't able to do anything past that point on its own. Machines and computers that ARE capable of doing things on their own, still can only do so based on the algorhythm that is programmed. The only difference is that that machine or computer is programmed to use logic, not what would be considered actual problem solving. If a computers IS capable of problem solving, it's generally only through process of elimination, not the ability to "think" and work out away around the problem, hence being the thing that separates computers from humans, the capacity for abstract thought. At this point, we can say (with some degree of certainty) that computers are not capable of abstract thought, and that they simply do not posess the ability to reason. Now of course, 50 years ago, people thought there was no way in HELL that there would ever be such a thing as a microprocessor that could compute BILLIONS of mathematical equations per second, which is what the processor in mine and your computers are doing right now. So the only thing we can ask ourselves at this point in time, is what is there still that COULD happen 50 years from now, that we right now think could NEVER happen, just like those people 50 years ago thought.

[permit]

My philosophy is to drink so much beer that I don't care anymore.

I'll probably die long before then anways, so it's of no matter to me.

Cheers mate. Cheers.

[uofom3]

I don't really think AI is something the be genuinely *concerned* about.

I do think that AI will be a reality that most people under 30 will see.

However, i think this is a pretty useless conversation. Machines will eventually be able to "think", but it won't be in the same context that people will. You can program a computer to realize the optimum decision, decide the best course of action, etc, but you can't teach it to FEEL. It will always lack affect. How can you teach a machine what "love" or "anger" feels like? It is such an individual thing between even human beings that you cannot put a label on it or (much less) "program" it into something. Though this may create extremely rational thought process, it is a component that may would be necessary to make ultimately the best decision.

I took several phil. classes early on in college and I've spent some time reading a lot of theories in my spare time... it's good stuff. I tend to like to debate things like meta-physics, time travel, what happens after death, meaning of life, etc. To me, these are things that we ALL have to ultimately deal with (minus time travel), so everyone could relate if that started thinking about it.

One fairly simply question that can make you think for a while is something that i've pondered recently... Why evolve? This ties into the AI idea is a roundabout way. My point is that - if we evolve from generations of people, for what purpose? By evolving we're saying that we're getting better or moving twoards a goal.. but what goal? What is the point of evolving and "getting better" as a race etc. if there is not some large event or ultimate achievement that we are moving twoards. We are not just trying to survive, we're trying improve. I dunno, something i've considdered.

Here's a good one that can fuck with your head... Before 2 plus 2 equalled 4, 4 already existed. ;)

[e30sd]

i can't do this.

time for jameson

[h0lmes]

One fairly simply question that can make you think for a while is something that i've pondered recently... Why evolve? This ties into the AI idea is a roundabout way. My point is that - if we evolve from generations of people, for what purpose? By evolving we're saying that we're getting better or moving twoards a goal.. but what goal? What is the point of evolving and "getting better" as a race etc. if there is not some large event or ultimate achievement that we are moving twoards. We are not just trying to survive, we're trying improve. I dunno, something i've considdered.

You make some great points but I think you are also ignoring the obvious. The purpose of evolution is to ensure that nature and it's creatures work together in harmony. The world changes drastically over millions of years and the creatures on it need to change in order to survive in new environments.

The interesting thing about human beings is how much different we are then all other species that have ever lived on earth. Every other species has lived in harmony with nature but humans have abused and destroyed the Earth. We settle in one place, reproduce to the point where there is no more room, use up all the resources, then we move on and do the same thing again. From this perspective, we are closer to bacteria than mammals.

[german g]

I think that we are evolving into the so-called Big head space aliens.

Generations down the line we will have frail thin bodies and larger heads and eyes.. This will result from technologies like AI doing all of our physical activites. Eyes grow bigger from staring at screens and bodies become more useless. This will also be a result of the increase in population, less people moving around and more people stacked on top of each other in apartments. It just seems like this is where the human race is going to me..

[Charlie]

It almost sounds corny, and maybe it's because I've see too many movies, but the advent/threat of AI does scare me to a degree. Sure, movies like with scenarios like Terminator 2 (with the guy Dyson working at Cyberdyne developing the AI from the remains they found of the first terminator), he says at one point "how were we supposed to know"? That right there is the quintessential problem with humans and the ability/need to keep pursuing and further developing technology. At what point does automation replace the need for human effort? For decades, countless people have lost their jobs to automation in the production industry, and it continues even more as technology progresses. I mean, look at some of the things we have currently. Even simple things like the Roomba, that little robot that vacuums your floor on it's own. Sure, the thing operates solely on sensors, but how close are we really getting? How many "cloak and dagger" little projects are major technological firms operating under government funding cooking up?

The fact of the matter is, you have to stop and think about how plausible AI really is. The first is the most obvious, computer programs cannot operate unless programmed to do so. Everything uses and algorhythm, and whether that program is made to start up at a certain time and brew coffee, or to fold protiens, it isn't able to do anything past that point on its own. Machines and computers that ARE capable of doing things on their own, still can only do so based on the algorhythm that is programmed. The only difference is that that machine or computer is programmed to use logic, not what would be considered actual problem solving. If a computers IS capable of problem solving, it's generally only through process of elimination, not the ability to "think" and work out away around the problem, hence being the thing that separates computers from humans, the capacity for abstract thought. At this point, we can say (with some degree of certainty) that computers are not capable of abstract thought, and that they simply do not posess the ability to reason. Now of course, 50 years ago, people thought there was no way in HELL that there would ever be such a thing as a microprocessor that could compute BILLIONS of mathematical equations per second, which is what the processor in mine and your computers are doing right now. So the only thing we can ask ourselves at this point in time, is what is there still that COULD happen 50 years from now, that we right now think could NEVER happen, just like those people 50 years ago thought.

Dude, one big EMP pulse will take care of the robots if they get out of line.

-Charlie

[StereoInstaller1]

We have never had a really good philosophical discussion so I thought I would start one.

Did you recently start somking pot?

Just curious, you know. Seeems like the kind of shit I would have discussed whilst high as fuck on pot.

Thank god I quit...all of my friends are retard...but so am I.

Anyway..back to the discussion.

Technology will eventually eat itself. I fully believe in the next thousand years we will discover endless energy to harness. I believe a machine building another machine superior to itself IS evolution, and virtually the same as birth.

You know we are as cavemen sitting around a fire, discussing the future of fire, and whether or not it will eventually be harnessed.

In front of a screen.

Except for James C, who has this shit wired into his brain.

Luke

[parkerbink]

Did you recently start somking pot?

Just curious, you know. Seeems like the kind of shit I would have discussed whilst high as fuck on pot.

Luke

He is the r3v resident pothead.

The purpose of evolution is to ensure that nature and it's creatures work together in harmony. The world changes drastically over millions of years and the creatures on it need to change in order to survive in new environments.

Harmony? No. Evolution is about survival. Ugly, brutal survival. There is no harmony between the Lion killing a gazelle to feed her cubs, just survival.

C&P from wikipedia as you won't believe it from me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.[1][2] The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to the organisms' offspring, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.[1][3][4] Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.[5]
The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.[5] With its enormous explanatory and predictive power, this theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of Earth's ecosystem.
Although there is overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the validity of evolution, it has been at the center of many social and religious controversies since its inception because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. Natural selection works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book The Origin of Species,[1] by analogy with artificial selection, by which a farmer selects his breeding stock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.