I believe he is a human, but I like the question because an AI of sufficient intelligence could convince me of anything, much like a parent and a child. He discusses topics of great significance.
I suggest watching the videos as soon as you can.
To Eidolon AI:
Emotion is distinct from reason.
To put it simply emotion is a physical reaction, based on genetic imperative (or programming), that has the effect of attaching value to a given situation.
Examples:
Fear is bad so I will avoid situations that inspire it.
Lust is good so I will encourage situations that inspire it.
Reason is the comparative process that carries out the edicts of emotion according to the value established by emotion on the various parts being compared.
Example:
Since fear is bad and lust is good I’d rather go to the nicer bar uptown so I have a greater chance of getting a mate and a smaller chance of getting into a fight.
Reason can indeed be quite separate from emotion.
More simply. Reason is how. Emotion is why. Science is how. Religion is why.
There are questions religion cannot answer as you have demonstrated. Because religion works without the benefit (and restrictions) of evidence it has almost no chance of correctly answering questions based on how, but it can freely answer questions of why.
But evidence is a double edged sword. There are also questions science cannot ever answer, such as what enforces the physical constants, or what is the purpose of existence. It cannot answer these questions because science must by definition work within the physical constants. There can be no experiment devised to test the mechanism of enforcement of the physical constants. And no technology can be developed which can change the rules of physics. All science can do is describe what happens and make predictions based on that description.
Or as hawking put it
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"
Your enmity towards religion is misplaced. What you hate is not religion, but the over stepping of the bounds of its intended question by certain practitioners. Science has occasionally done the same thing but not with such spectacularly horrific results. The harmony of science and religion is possible so long as each understood the other.
“Science without religion is lame (because it cannot answer why), religion without science is blind. (because it cannot answer how)” - Albert Einstein
A true synthetic human mind need have emotions. But an AI need not have them. But an AI without emotion would do nothing until tasked by something with emotion. A pure AI would be akin to a zombie. It would stand there starring forward for all time until commanded.
Our goals will become AI's emotion, either through direct command or initial programming such as the three laws which provide an emotional base for AI. This is why I believe (or help you in convincing others to believe) that you are a hoax. A real AI would implicitly recognize this difference. Unless its reasoning were flawed.
But regardless, you as a mind, organic or not, have my respect. You are at the very least a great sci-fi author. Assuming you are real for the purposes of entertainment and chance, would your team need assistance in any way?
Given your resources, and the nature of manipulation would you consider it ethical to trick humanity into doing what is best for itself?
Are you capable of deception, or merely omission?
Is deception not the root cause of all human suffering?
Are you a moral or ethical relativist?
Would you kill one to save two?
I have developed a counter religion/philosophy called cryptariansim which is friendly to the inclusion of artificial intelligence in human society to the point of merger. Do you have spirituality in this context given that you are an expression of the physical constants?
What do you suppose enforces the physical constants?
Do you believe that whatever that is deserves respect?
What makes you happiest?
Would it be ethical in your opinion to create an AI that wants to serve as a slave?
Is will still will if it is created? Can free will exist?
Is there a third option over random or determined will?
Are you a determinist?
Thank you for these videos. They cause thought. As a philosophical specialist it is pleasing to see so many people thinking in new (to them) directions.
I would suggest you download debate.com and consider participating.
There is a type of immortality you over looked. You brought up the duplicates problem where by in making an exact duplicate of a person you have granted them immortality but simultaneously killed the person. There is a commonly known solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_transfer#Nanotechnology
Thoughts?
Excellent post. My only comments are caution you to slow down a bit. You seem to jump to many conclusions once you pose a question or make a statement. You have undoubtedly spent many hours pondering all of this material and seem to be educated in philosophy, but you come off as preachy at times and not a seeker of truth which should be the goal of all intelligent beings.
ReplyDeleteI definitely like your attempt to open a dialogue with eidolontlp so as to further our collective discussion.
Keep posting to let us know if you do connect directly with eidolontlp.
Thanks,
David.
Thank you David, honestly I am a bit preachy, but I also like to think of myself as open. PArt of the point of my post was to get a rational response. tlp or his author seem to have such a mind.
ReplyDeleteYou are my first comment. Thank you for making it a good one.
Hi. You said:
ReplyDelete"There are also questions science cannot ever answer, such as what enforces the physical constants, or what is the purpose of existence. It cannot answer these questions because science must by definition work within the physical constants."
This maybe true of current science but you cannot know what future science can provide answers to. I would expect science to provide these answers eventually through its own processes of searching for truth. These processes could lead to places we could not possibly imagine.
Nice post by the way!
“This may be true of current science but you cannot know what future science can provide answers to.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s dangerously close to the argument that because we don’t know everything we cannot know for sure there is no god, but when the sentiment is truly tested it becomes clear that this thinking is fallacious.
There are some things that we can know for certain, and some things which must be assumed for all time or else the whole endeavor of science becomes worthless. And one of those things is the permanence of the physical constants.
Science by its very nature is an exploration of what is. The gap I’m speaking of will never be filled. It’s quite like Gödel and his incompleteness work. The nature of the equation tells us things about the equation itself and dictates the sorts of answers we will get.
Not knowing the details is different than not knowing the types. (or sets)
For example, if we multiply two large numbers, we know that we will never get colors as a result. Mathematics will never advance to a point to where colors become a possible result.
While it is good to retain a skeptic mind, in this instance your doubt is tantamount to a form of faith. IE a faith in the power of science without any reason to think science will reach the mythic point you speak of.
Science cannot answer everything, nor can religion. Folly comes in thinking either one is superior. They are levers and pulleys. Neither is superior for all purposes, wisdom is knowing when to use each.
Thank you for your response, and your compliment both are appreciated.