Laudate_Dominum Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 [quote name='Franimus' post='1014317' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:04 PM'] As you said, understanding all that is really hard in a written post. I see nothing wrong with AI. Obviously, AI is never going ot be able to fully replicate teh human mind. Trying to make it replace the human mind or something like that (such as creating robots that people think are and treat the same as real people), however, I see as wrong. Edit: I did understand quite a bit of that, though... but I don't see the actual advantage of ternary processing... A friend of mine explained to me an idea of his involving luminous processing, which has major speed advantages, and involved also ternary processing (RGD colors)... but I don't know what the advantage of straight ternary processing is... [/quote] Speed isn't everything. The information pathways of your brain are certainly much slower than the desktop computer you are no doubt using. The reason the brain is so much more powerful is mostly because it is a massively parallel system, not because the neural pathways and relays are faster than electronics. I do agree that optical processing technology is phat and worth pursuing, but I still think that what is more important is the design of the system as a whole. The advantage of ternary processing pertains to the specific application at hand. Much of the theory behind my so-called concept for the concept of a concept is based on the unary operations possible within a ternary framework as well as the rules of trivalent logic. I wasn't suggesting the deprecation of binary systems across the board. I was thinking more along the lines of a hypothetical peripheral device with a ternary architecture that could interface with a conventional system. This would simply serve the purpose of providing hardware acceleration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 [quote name='p0lar_bear' post='1014458' date='Jun 29 2006, 08:07 AM'] I think that at least to some degree, the purpose of art is to expess something about humanity, the human experience, or the world. It's a physical representation of something that is more than just what is shown in the painting or the sculpture. It's about truth, beauty, and/or goodness... or sometimes about possibility, pain, expression of emotion...or about telling a story.... While some paintings and sculptures are very realistic, that's not generally the [i]point[/i] of the art. Some of the greatest artists in history were not from schools that valued realism in the portrayal. With video games, the point is to entertain, to make the player more involved in the world and situations created by the game, to draw the player into an experience he can't have in the real world. It's the creation of a fantasy world that feels real.... The video game isn't trying to mimic reality so much as create a new "reality." [/quote] I wasn't implying that realism is necessarily art but merely that realism is often something that is appreciated in art. Many endeavors have the potential to be artistic expressions. In my opinion a doctor can be an artist, a shipbuilder can be an artist, a geneticist can be an artist. The criteria is founded more upon personalistic principles to my mind than a static definition of what constitutes art. In my view the human person is by nature an artist, and one of the ways in which human work has meaning and can be considered truly human (as opposed to undignified or degrading) is insofar as it is artistic expression. Connected with this are certain aspects of my theory of aesthetics, for example in my thinking one of the criteria of authentic aesthetic value (in contrast perhaps with the merely evocative) is that said value is ennobling and reflective of the properly ordered structures of consciousness (on the surface this might appear to be a completely subjective criteria which denies any real ontological status to transcendental values, but in light of my anthropology this assumption is in fact the opposite of the truth). The so-called structures of consciousness describe the continuity between the mind, and the constitution of the human person with the fundamental constituents of being and the cosmos. In other words the mind as it is continuous with the observable universe. One might attempt to put this another way and say 'the mind as an organically evolved computational device that is reducible to material phenomenon', but this would be a gross misunderstanding. The human person is certainly material and in many ways "mechanical", but the human person is first and foremost a transcendent being. All forms of materialism strike me as antiquated nonsense. I believe the philosophy of the future will in fact be broader in scope, and appreciative of what we might call the spiritual and transcendent aspects of existence. [quote name='p0lar_bear' post='1014458' date='Jun 29 2006, 08:07 AM'] What is the purpose of your A.I. is it just for novelties sake? to see if it can be done? to help humanity in some way? to replace humanity in some way? to create a quasi-human? to play God with a lesser "being"? Is it to do human work? Will that divorce us even more from who we are? Will it express something about the human experience? Create a new experience? Teach people about other human experiences? Will it further truth, beauty, and goodness? Any technology will be coopted by others. What ramifications would this have? Is it worth the risk? I know I've given you questions rather than answers....sorry [/quote] Quite frankly the higher purpose of technology as it interests me is to a large extent to take away jobs from human beings and "replace" human work in as many spheres as possible. It is difficult to imagine where I am really coming from in this regard because we tend to contextualize the development and application of technology within the world that we know. Thus far technology has been developing in the context of very primitive and animalistic economic and social structures. Free market capitalism, socialism, et cetera are very dehumanizing, primitive and immoral systems. Most people would probably be appalled by the idea of machines taking away jobs from people, but the assumption is that people need jobs. People don't need jobs; people need shelter, food and an avenue in which to grow and flourish as a human being; people need a meaningful life. Within our primitive economic systems the best that is provided is that in general people submit to some form of impersonal and dehumanizing exploitation and/or subjugation in order to survive within a system that is based on barbaric and immoral principles. And the result is rarely even a delusional sense of meaning and fulfillment, or if the life is felt to be meaningful and fulfilling is it most likely in spite of the system, not because of it. Theses structures condition the development and application of technology so it is no surprise that in a system in which the human person is first and foremost a means to an end this technology will be used in depersonalizing and exploitative ways. Some might jump to conclusions and attempt to visualize a world order on the basis of comments made thus far and then form the question of how people will not become lazy slobs in a world in which most people lack "jobs". First off, I'm not talking about a welfare state or anything even remotely resembling that sort of nonsense. And in my estimation the root cause of lethargy as a social phenomenon is the condition of meaninglessness propagated by a dehumanizing system. I certainly reject the idea that human nature tends toward lethargy, it is a symptom of an ill society. And I have never said that man ought not work, this would be inhuman, what I've said is that man ought not have "jobs", situations in which inhuman values trump the human; systems in which things such as competition, greed, exploitation, power struggle, compulsion, and various other sub-human, animalistic forces rule the human jungle. It would take a great deal of explanation to fully elucidate my perspective, and there is no way this is possible via posts. But the exploration of hypothetical systems which reflect a truly dignified and transcendent view of the human person is seemingly becoming my life's work. In the past I made the mistake of believing that technology ought to be liquidated and that a low tech agrarian society affords the best hypothetic scenario, but now I believe this perspective is driven by a view of technology that is locked within the context of our primitive economic structures. Don't get me wrong, I am still a major supporter of agrarian values, but I no longer see an absolute enmity between these two things. It would be beautiful if industry was some day transitioned to outer space and our planet became more a sort of natural sanctuary in which people lived the agrarian lifestyle but with a non-hostile integration of technological resources. One of the problems I have with all of the major "modern" economic theories is that they are too utilitarian. And the discussion of ownership of the means of production seems shallow to me as well. In the end such things are all reducible to a kind of base power struggle; human society is still a jungle and man is still a beast. The proper contextualization of work and technological development can transform technology not into a menacing competitor or dehumanizing threat, but rather an ennobling force which elevates man and human society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 (edited) I will take a Blade Runner world over an Attack of the Clones world, or even a Gattaca world wow, i really didn't contribute to this thread at all! lol but i don't see any harm in AI and machine other than some of the previously mentioned sci-fi rules of chaos Edited July 30, 2006 by Lounge Daddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1034308' date='Jul 30 2006, 10:41 AM'] I will take a Blade Runner world over an Attack of the Clones world, or even a Gattaca world wow, i really didn't contribute to this thread at all! lol but i don't see any harm in AI and machine other than some of the previously mentioned sci-fi rules of chaos [/quote] [i]Blade Runner[/i] rules! My all-time fav sci-fi flick! So beautifully depressing! Gattaca was friggin' boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 you guys are awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hierochloe Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 [quote name='Socrates' post='1034558' date='Jul 30 2006, 07:45 PM'] [i]Blade Runner[/i] rules! [/quote] Totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavenseeker Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 AI is an interesting topic and if used correctly can be a very good thing. If you ask me AI is just one of those things that can be both good and bad. It all just depends what it gets used for and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote name='heavenseeker' post='1035714' date='Aug 1 2006, 03:46 PM'] AI is an interesting topic and if used correctly can be a very good thing. If you ask me AI is just one of those things that can be both good and bad. It all just depends what it gets used for and why. [/quote] agreed. and I don't really see why its a big deal at all. the vast majority of applications have little or nothing to do with replacing human beings. I doubt anyone is too threatened by things like a diagnostic sytem in a car; its just that people often think of science fiction stories and imagine HAL or the dude from "I Robot" or something. maybe someday those sorts of issues will actually have to be faced, but by then I imagine people will be more comfortable with the concept and not so reactionary. I suppose my original issue had less to do with AI in a general sense, and more to do with the ambition of creating extremely powerful adaptive systems. I think your view pertains to this specific question quite nicely; it is the use or application of such a system that matters in terms of any moral question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavenseeker Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 wow most of the time i have to defend my view but not this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 [quote name='heavenseeker' post='1036446' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:23 PM'] wow most of the time i have to defend my view but not this time. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Some times we were debating AI in the real world rather than fighting a war against Islamofascism and involved in a debate against abortionists and cloners. (sigh) I guess that is the nice thing about escapism Btw… …why can’t I find a copy of the original theatrical release of Blade Runner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1046080' date='Aug 18 2006, 12:14 PM'] Btw… …why can’t I find a copy of the original theatrical release of Blade Runner? [/quote] sorry star trek is cool too: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57612&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...c=57612&hl=[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franimus Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Okay.. I'm understanding what you're saying about ternary system now... I see AI as something that can really help humanity, and also (as with anything) can really hurt humanity, too. But what I really want to see, is an AI program which is fed all the info on all the religions and says Catholicism is the only one that's true hehe... secular philosophers couldn't argue well with that :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Would creating A.I. automatically include creating a sentient being? And would creating a new sentient being be akin to playing God? I think the two questions above must be clear in anyone's mind prior to questioning the morality behind A.I.l Arrghh, where's Thomas Aquinas when you need him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Was L_D an LSD addict in his earlier days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now