|
| Thread: Please only Philosophers read this thread! No on else! I'm serious... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 24, 2007 03:09 AM |
|
|
Nice thread from the dawn of my HC existence.
Quote:
1. Are machines our slaves?
No. They are our tools.
Quote:
a) Do they need to be given their freedom?
No, as they are our tools. Can you give a hammer freedom?
Quote:
b) If you build a machine, are you its father or its mother?
If you make a hammer, are you its father or its mother?
Quote:
c) Should machines be allowed to vote?
No.
Quote:
2. Is it morally right for us to debate philosophy when theres so much that needs to be done pragmaticallly in the world?
Philosophy is a means to an end. Without philosophy, there is much we wouldn't have, including what we need to solve problems.
Quote:
a) Are our needs more important the the needs of otheres?
Yes, but by the social contract we have to respect others' needs and cooperate with them, so they will cooperate with us. Basically, 75% of the time we have to act as if our needs are not the most important.
Quote:
b) Are other people worth caring about?
Certainly. We have friends. We have family. We have society. And we derive benefit from all of them, as they (hopefully) derive benefit from us.
Quote:
c) Should other people be allowed to vote?
No. j/k. Of course, as long as they're informed.
Quote:
3. Democracy
a) Do we have elected officials to eliminate the need to think, and let them decide for us?
No. We elect them to save time, and to be more informed (because we can't know everything that a government needs to know).
Quote:
b) If the majority 51% thinks we should torture the other 49% population until they die, should we do so?
No. In a good democracy, the rights of all individuals (majority or minority) are respected as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.
Quote:
c) Who decides whats ok for the majority to decide and whats not?
If it infringes on any non-criminal's rights, then it's wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted December 24, 2007 03:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My question is, how can humans truely test the speed of light? even if we were to test to see how long it takes to go from one place to another (you would need a tower and a powerfull light) how can you guage the true speed? for the machinery to send the information from the start point to the finish point to start the timer, and then from the finishing point to the start point to stop the timer, or even just one of the two, light travels at a theoretical speed of 1 lightyear per year (ok thats taking the easy way out speed of light according to http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/lightspeed.html is 299,792,458 meters per second ok so if you wanted to test it the farthest you can see from one point on the ground to another is 24 kilometres aprox. 15 miles. so you want divide 24,000 metres max area with 299,792,458 and it gives you 0.0000800553828475564918981384114739 seconds, now that is near nil speed right? computers canot send information that quickly nor can it even prosses it, how did scientists calculate this speed? lets say you had a lan and the two computers are next to eachother the fastest connection i can have with two 2 GHz computers at 100 Mbps us aprox 5 ms time to connect, couple that with the fact nothing can travel faster then light you canot physicaly test the speed of light, therefor its a lie the whole speed of light, its a number that nobody could prove wrong with factual numbers so it was taken for true.
mirror on moon.laser on earth. work it out distance/time=rate
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted December 24, 2007 01:08 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 13:09, 24 Dec 2007.
|
What should we do after we read this thread?
A : Kill somebody?
B : Make suicide?
C : Drink some tea?
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 15:21, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
about the socks
its the evil sock elves that the Haynes corporations breed and send out to steal our socks. they come in while its washing and cast evil sock elf magic and make the socks disappear, thereby making us go out and buy more.
I haven't had such a good laugh for quite some time. 
About the "black and white world's effect on economy" thing:
I myself can not imagine really, as humans "normally" see colours. And making everything greyscale is a fairly big change. You might imagine what it would be to see colours not, while others do but not when nobody sees them -in my opinion. Because colors are inherent, common and basic (axiomic) element of our lives. But it's an interesting thought and I agree that such world's economy Would differ from this, but how?
Well to play around a bit with imaginations: First of all the society would be different and it would determine economy (well society is determined by human attitude, moral etc. it's complex). Surely there would be many words describing shades, but how many shades would we see? It's now become a biologycal-physical problem from social-economycal. If we saw less shades of grey than now, I think or eyes won't give us much info... but thinking about it: would animals see colours? If not, then what about bees, birds and so on? So much depends on colours: the copulation of animals e.g.
It's quite a solemn question! Congratulations!
edit: ^^" I didn't listen to the post-dates... but might the talk rise again.
|
|
Lord_Evil
Famous Hero
Evil lolcat
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What should we do after we read this thread?
A : Kill somebody?
B : Make suicide?
C : Drink some tea?
And what about option "D"? you see, not every question have a yes/no/A/B/C answers.
For Example:
What is the meaning of life?
A: There is no meaning
B: To survive
C: To die
or
D: There is no such thing as life, basicly there is no after life and no death. And how do you define death if death is not losing your soul and moving to the other world? Easily! Because the main thing you live for is to breed and make sure the existence of your race will stay, so living is when the/a body is actually activeted (it doesn't mater how its activated, as long as there is some sort of energy in it and its activated as able to think and to get to a conclusion of its thinking).
For Example:
A super intellegent computer.
So what is death? Death is when you stop being activeted, when the energy is gone. So you see not only things that are found in nature are alive. But what about feelings, robots has no feelings. But thats another story.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway you get the idea of "not only the answers that are given to choose are the only answers".
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is the meaning of life?
42 
Quote:
Nice thread from the dawn of my HC existence.
Quote:
1. Are machines our slaves?
No. They are our tools.
Quote:
a) Do they need to be given their freedom?
No, as they are our tools. Can you give a hammer freedom?
You have a very twisted definition of 'tool'. So basically, what is a tool? Something that is disposable? Something that you do not care about? Then how do you define a slave? Why would humans have more 'rights' than a self-aware machine?
Actually, come to think of it, what is the difference between a slave and a tool?
Were the people centuries back 'tools' for the masters as well? Of course, they were, since they made the "job done". In a certain perspective, this is pure subjective. The hammer example is purely ridiculous, since it is not self-aware, and it won't ever be.
Again: What is the difference between a slave and a tool? Does slave means using a 'tool' against it's will? Then by that definition, self-aware machines are slaves.
Is the difference between the slave and a tool the species? Are human tools considered slaves while everything else is called a 'tool'?
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 06:47 PM |
|
|
TheDeath, you have a strange point of view (for my own taste) but I don't say it's stupid. As I'm not nattive with English I can only treat these words from a Hungarian aspect...
The Hungarian equivalents for "tool" are numerous (refering to a dictionary software) "eszköz" is something that makes an operation easier, it can be used for humans in figurative sense; "szerszám" is a thing that makes the phyisical work more effective; it is never used in figurative sense. [refering to a Hungarian explanatory dictionary and my common sense] But both are inert.
Slave ("szolga") is a bit more complex: 1, someone hired (or of course forced) to do housework/economical work/work around one's person (making one pleased, sure about one's comfort etc.) 2, office boy 3, Someone working selflessly to help a community [these are imperfect definitions due to my English]
So I think a tool is not living. And a slave is a human being. What is a human being? I hope we won't be so lunatic to start on such questions  .
About Lord Evil's perceptions on life: Modern biology (as far as I know/ was taught) stands that there is no life. (which is rather funny from the science of life though) There are only "alive systems" or whatever English science calls them. I myself can hardly accept this as truth, but I can understand the reasons. However it is rather easy to tell what is alive and what is not -in everyday life.
But I can't really understand the question about the freedom or enslavement of tools. There are no self-aware machines (as far as I know). So it is not a big problem... But philosophi does not need to be practical, does it?
I don't think humans could create self-aware things (except the "3 letter method" aka sex, but it's an other matter) We do not even understand our own self-awareness, how could we reproduce?
Back to slavery problems: a self-aware machine (aside it's non-existence) is not a slave. It is not enslaved. "It was made to do it's work." So it never had choice, it could not lost its freedom, it never had, and probably it would never desire. Then what about us? If we accept creation then we were/are created "free". We have choice betveen God and Not-God, with or without him. (freedom is a complex problem even is theolgy but I'm not going on with that now)If we denie creation and eg. accept evolution, we are l'art pour l'art things and should do nothing more than eat and "reproduce" and not wasting precious time with such balderdash 
But just for fun, imagine a machine that might could goes on itself, like in classic sci-fi. It would not be alive, made of metal or stuff... Or why go to sci-fi? Here we are in HC. The stone-golem: it is crafted by magic (which does not eist but it is philosophy). The golem is marked as non-organic, but mechanic. It is unaffected by poison, moral and mind-affect. So it is mindless and amoral (I mean it has no kind of moral intention, knowing nothing about what the **** moral is, to be profane. It is not immoral as it does not do "bad" knowing why that is bad or that is bad at all) So can we let such things do what they may? Even under the restriction of law? Do we think they would understand law or care? The comic series "Freefall" has some interesting pages on this subject. A golem is a tool, it is made from stone and it excludes many quality a "freeable" one might need (in my opinion). But the raksasa are enslaved like the djin (if I'm right). They are bound by magic (ergo: force) and they are must do what they are told or else suffer punishment. They have mind and moral abilities. An other inteesting example for slavery is the JKR houself. It has all the "spiritual qualities" of a human but is bound by magic (force) many time against its will, but it could and it would do "good" on its own will (in Chamber of Secrets Dobby tells Harry even if he has to punish himself seriously and in book7 he saves lives on the cost of his own [sorry if spoilerd]).
But again in reality where we talk about these problems, there are no self-aware robots, golems or elves. We have computers with a more than simple AI, which does what it is told to do -no more, no less. And we have enslaved humans who feel like us and we can understand (more or less) their state as we can apply their circumstances for ourselves. But we will never be able to think like golems or machines and it's true vica versa.
That's what I think.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:03 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:04, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
The Hungarian equivalents for "tool" are numerous (refering to a dictionary software) "eszköz" is something that makes an operation easier, it can be used for humans in figurative sense; "szerszám" is a thing that makes the phyisical work more effective; it is never used in figurative sense. [refering to a Hungarian explanatory dictionary and my common sense] But both are inert.
Slaves make work easier for their masters as well...
Quote:
Slave ("szolga") is a bit more complex: 1, someone hired (or of course forced) to do housework/economical work/work around one's person (making one pleased, sure about one's comfort etc.)
So why would a machine doing this kind of stuff not be called a slave?
Quote:
So I think a tool is not living. And a slave is a human being. What is a human being? I hope we won't be so lunatic to start on such questions .
Yes, but like I said, is this the only difference between a tool and a slave? The fact that one is human, and one is not?
And of course I'm talking about self-aware machines. 
Quote:
But I can't really understand the question about the freedom or enslavement of tools. There are no self-aware machines (as far as I know). So it is not a big problem... But philosophi does not need to be practical, does it?
Quote:
Back to slavery problems: a self-aware machine (aside it's non-existence) is not a slave. It is not enslaved. "It was made to do it's work." So it never had choice, it could not lost its freedom, it never had, and probably it would never desire.
No, it would not have freedom because it would never be allowed to choose -- remember that human slaves existed and their masters had the same arguments. The slaves were made to do their work, or at least that's how their masters claimed. It is the same thing, if you take a closer look.
The difference is none, in this respect. A 'tool' is something that is made by you (or bought by you), the master, to use it. If it becomes self-aware, and you do it against it's will, I would be ready to call it a slave.
A human 'slave' is someone that was bought by the master, to use it. That is his/her's only purpose (from the master's point of view), therefore it is a 'tool'. However it usually goes against his/her will, so I call it a 'slave'.
Hence why machines can be slaves as well.
Quote:
The stone-golem: it is crafted by magic (which does not eist but it is philosophy). The golem is marked as non-organic, but mechanic. It is unaffected by poison, moral and mind-affect. So it is mindless and amoral (I mean it has no kind of moral intention, knowing nothing about what the **** moral is, to be profane. It is not immoral as it does not do "bad" knowing why that is bad or that is bad at all) So can we let such things do what they may? Even under the restriction of law? Do we think they would understand law or care?
Why should they respect our laws and understand our laws? Do you think animals, for example, which are not mindless, respect our laws? Why should not go the other way around, i.e we should respect their laws?
Of course the golems are usually mindless and thus unable to 'live' by themselves (hence why they would probably be called 'tools').
Quote:
But again in reality where we talk about these problems, there are no self-aware robots, golems or elves. We have computers with a more than simple AI, which does what it is told to do -no more, no less. And we have enslaved humans who feel like us and we can understand (more or less) their state as we can apply their circumstances for ourselves. But we will never be able to think like golems or machines and it's true vica versa.
Computers are not self-aware, yet.
Did you watch Steven Spielberg's AI?
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hence why machines can be slaves as well.
Can you name me at least one self-aware machine?
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:19 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:19, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Can you name me at least one self-aware machine?
I wrote:
Quote:
Computers are not self-aware, yet.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:22 PM |
|
|
Than machines can´t be slaves yet.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:26 PM |
|
|
|
I was talking in general: machines can be slaves, if self-aware, for example. My statement still holds (and it's what I meant anyway).
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:38 PM |
|
|
Well, if you are taking this position, let´s continue discussion - Would you "use" self-aware machine? In general.
____________
Result matters
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 07:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have a very twisted definition of 'tool'. So basically, what is a tool?
A tool is a non-living thing that can be used.
Quote:
Then how do you define a slave?
A human who works involountarily and is not a a convict.
Quote:
Why would humans have more 'rights' than a self-aware machine?
Because there's no such thing as a self-aware machine.
Quote:
Actually, come to think of it, what is the difference between a slave and a tool?
Slaves are human. Tools are not living.
Quote:
The hammer example is purely ridiculous, since it is not self-aware, and it won't ever be.
Name one machine that is self-aware.
The thing is that a slave is a human used against his or her will. Machines don't have any kind of will. Slaves can rebel, complain, or beg. Machines can't do any of these things.
And why would we create a self-aware machine anyway? And how would we know that it's self-aware, and not just programmmed for a very large number of situations?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:10 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:10, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
Well, if you are taking this position, let´s continue discussion - Would you "use" self-aware machine? In general.
Well, would you "use" a human? Yes of course (otherwise we, as humans, would get nothing done), but you have to care about him/her as well. This means, you don't force someone to do something he does not like (in most cases anyway); you have to think how he 'feels' about the thing, in his position (e.g he might not like what you like, etc).
@mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
Then how do you define a slave?
A human who works involountarily and is not a a convict.
Please replace that human with a 'thing'.
(of course note the involuntarily which means the thing needs to think).
Quote:
Because there's no such thing as a self-aware machine.
That doesn't answer the question though -- besides, maybe it isn't right now, but your phrase seems to be stating the absolute (as in: always).
Quote:
Slaves are human. Tools are not living.
Just because they are humans doesn't mean that they are the only things living. Yes of course I agree, a 'tool' is something without a will -- but I was talking about self-aware machines, that prolly don't exist right now
Quote:
The thing is that a slave is a human used against his or her will. Machines don't have any kind of will. Slaves can rebel, complain, or beg. Machines can't do any of these things.
Of course machines don't have will yet, but just as a note: Just because they don't rebel does not mean that it is their will not to do so -- being forced can hide that so deep you'll not even notice it anymore (you = the slave in this case).
That doesn't mean that they are not slaves.
Quote:
And why would we create a self-aware machine anyway? And how would we know that it's self-aware, and not just programmmed for a very large number of situations?
It's called Artificial Intelligence I think
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please replace that human with a 'thing'.
You asked me to define "slave" and I did.
Quote:
That doesn't mean that they are not slaves.
If they don't express their will, how are we to know what it is?
Quote:
It's called Artificial Intelligence I think
Artificial intelligence doesn't mean "self-aware machines". It just means that they're programmed to respond to a great variety of situations.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:31 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:32, 10 May 2008.
|
Quote:
If they don't express their will, how are we to know what it is?
Maybe we won't be able to know it (never said that), but I only stated that doesn't make them any less slaves. (and I was talking about humans btw).
Quote:
Artificial intelligence doesn't mean "self-aware machines". It just means that they're programmed to respond to a great variety of situations.
Intelligence is not memorizing a huge set of instructions. It's how you 'program' yourself and 'adapt'. It's the way you think, it's the thing that makes you 'out-of-the-box' if you know what I mean
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, if you are taking this position, let´s continue discussion - Would you "use" self-aware machine? In general.
Well, would you "use" a human? Yes of course (otherwise we, as humans, would get nothing done), but you have to care about him/her as well. This means, you don't force someone to do something he does not like (in most cases anyway); you have to think how he 'feels' about the thing, in his position (e.g he might not like what you like, etc).
And now imagine, that your computer is self-aware, you want to post answer to this post and computer says: "Sorry, I don´t feel like posting something on HC, let´s do it tomorrow". Why would we create such a machine? We need tools to make our work and life easier, but not slaves. In the end we would have silent and reliable things, and self-aware slaves, who would perform only possible problems and danger.
____________
Result matters
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And now imagine, that your computer is self-aware, you want to post answer to this post and computer says: "Sorry, I don´t feel like posting something on HC, let´s do it tomorrow". Why would we create such a machine? We need tools to make our work and life easier, but not slaves. In the end we would have silent and reliable things, and self-aware slaves, who would perform only possible problems and danger.
Never said that all computers will be needed to be self-aware. For that matter, I said 'machines', which includes more things than just computers.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2008 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe we won't be able to know it (never said that), but I only stated that doesn't make them any less slaves.
They're not slaves if they're silent and don't express any noticeable opposition.
Quote:
It's how you 'program' yourself and 'adapt'.
But AIs do that by memorizing a huge set of instructions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
