We don't know one way or the other, so it's not really relevant. Besides, human consciousness might also be re-creatable. Can you say with 100% certainty that it is completely impossible to make an exact copy of the complete state of a human's neural network?
Yes. Actually. At this time we can not make a copy. So, yes, we can't restore the state of a human. Neither can we reconstruct exactly a human's hardware if we break it. If this changes, do you honestly think laws won't change with time? If I murder someone, knowing full well, you'll just "respawn" them, is it as bad as murder now? Should the punishment be the same? I
Killing humans is not unethical in many places. In America for example it is considered acceptable for a number or reasons, including their failure to comply with accepted morals and ethics (e.g. if they go around killing people for kicks.). You have not answered the point, would it be ethical to force our moral/ethical standard on our creation? Perhaps against its will(if the AI has this thing we call will)? How is that different from just admitting "we made it and can do what we like with it?" After all, if we can programatically force it to do that, we can programmatically force it to do anything.
If you kill a human they are gone. An AI may be re-creatable. Also, human level intelligence does not imply human level morality or ethics. Or is it right in your view to impose these on an AI? If we can impose things at will upon an AI, how is it better from just admitting the AI is "Artificial" and thus we can do what we like with it? How do you know it would even fear death?
Of course its defensible. The child has potential. An AI can be recreated if erased by supplying identical inputs and initial conditions. The child can not. This much is obvious. If I erase my AI, it isn't ended in the same way as if I erase a child. Why does everyone forget the implications of the "Artificial" part of "AI"? Too much sci fi?
You're missing the point. We did not for example define even the initial state of the baby's brain - we do not own the software state(if you want to use that poor analogy). Neither did we define completely it's hardware. It is a human being - not of our design (whether or not we were designed is not relevant here).
With an AI, we designed the hardware. We designed the software. We defined the initial conditions. We defined the inputs. So, clearly there is a difference. The AI, in essence is the sum of the inputs of its designers. Therefore they should decide what to do with the AI. The analogy simply does not hold.
No Human is owned - that would be a violation of rights. But a computer for example (no matter how complex) is hardware which can be owned. Its software is merely a state of that machine which can also be owned. If I want to change the state of my software on my hardware, how can you say I'm ethically wrong? An AI I make is mine in a way no other intelligence can be. I can not own a person, neither can I own the state of their brain. But the state of the conditions inside hardware that I own, I do. I defined (at least initially) those conditions.
A hypothetical baby is created through normal (hopefully) natural biological process. Any AI is created through application of intelligence. Thus I don't find the analogy sufficiently good to base a decision on. It is unethical to kill the baby, but that does not imply it is unethical to wipe the AI. Though, why would you?
No, but it hits southern Africa quite hard. But while America may be larger, it is certainly less corrupt. Its partial corruption may mess up the world far worse than Zimbabwe's total corruption, yes. But I think we can hardly call America "totally" corrupt. Unless OP intended a figure of speech and my lack of coffee got in the way.
And yet(surprisingly), america is not in africa. There is a lot of worry in South Africa for example, that the same thing will happen there - some crazy dictator will take over and screw the country. What people forget is that South Africa is not Zimbabwe. And you could hardly compare America to Africa. It is a different situation and things will go down differently.
In essence, in Zimbabwe they have Mugabe. In South Africa they have Julius Malema as their crazy potential dictator. Who've you got?
I have lived in a "Civil war torn African country." I have never lived in America, I must admit, but I have a hard time believing the level of corruption is anywhere near comparable to say, Zimbabwe. In fact I seriously doubt you understand what "total corruption" really means, until you actually experience it. I know exactly what it means. And after a long chat with my brother in America, you don't have it. Not even close.
And btw, this is not an argument, this is abuse. You want room 12b.:)
That is why I never reuse my email password and made it a long complicated sentence.... So, I might reuse the password from steam on something else, but the email is unique and (hopefully) secure...
So in other words, like most human run organizations it did some good and some bad? I'd actually say, much as I disagree with the catholic position, that they probably did more good for science then bad. Certainly the modern catholic church isn't anti-science.
Why not look up group dynamics to see why things are that way. This is not something unique to religion.
As I understand it, the current theory is that before the big bang, there was no "time" as such, so the question, "where did it come from" to a physicist is not meaningful.
A more interesting question is why did it come at all?
Lets put it this way, my argument is not that we can know everything. Science is a model and it will get better and better(may be never be complete), but there is no need to look for gaps to slot God in. If God is God he is God of the natural as well. It is insulting to both Religion and Science to suggest that just because we don't understand it, God did it. It diminishes God to something found in things we don't yet understand. And when our model grows to encompass those things, where did God go?
Actually, Coyne would be wrong there. The catholic church condemns pedophiles but not science. The two are not equivalent statements. Whether or not science and religion are compatible, Coyne here is guilty of using an argument designed to create an emotional not a logical reaction. Not that Haughts answer is sufficient. Again, neither party is clean. But I genuinely think if you came to Haught with some respect, he would be open to debate.
I never offered to prove there was a purpose. All I said was that there is no evidence either way. You brought up the evidence question (99.99%), and I honestly would still be very interested in seeing that. Don't build strawmen here. If you say that my above statement is wrong, then please address the statement. Attacking the statement "there is a purpose" is futile, because I am not making that as a claim.
I have nothing against them. I was merely pointing out that your philosophy also fits into that category. Why not debate the matter instead of an arbitrary "fail again"?
Sure prayer works. There are even some scientific studies on it. Mostly they attribute the effects to coincidence and the placebo effect. I will assert though that the effects are not always reproducible, so I don't assert there is a scientific reason to accept prayer.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't know one way or the other, so it's not really relevant. Besides, human consciousness might also be re-creatable. Can you say with 100% certainty that it is completely impossible to make an exact copy of the complete state of a human's neural network?
Yes. Actually. At this time we can not make a copy. So, yes, we can't restore the state of a human. Neither can we reconstruct exactly a human's hardware if we break it. If this changes, do you honestly think laws won't change with time? If I murder someone, knowing full well, you'll just "respawn" them, is it as bad as murder now? Should the punishment be the same? I
Killing humans is not unethical in many places. In America for example it is considered acceptable for a number or reasons, including their failure to comply with accepted morals and ethics (e.g. if they go around killing people for kicks.). You have not answered the point, would it be ethical to force our moral/ethical standard on our creation? Perhaps against its will(if the AI has this thing we call will)? How is that different from just admitting "we made it and can do what we like with it?" After all, if we can programatically force it to do that, we can programmatically force it to do anything.
If you kill a human they are gone. An AI may be re-creatable. Also, human level intelligence does not imply human level morality or ethics. Or is it right in your view to impose these on an AI? If we can impose things at will upon an AI, how is it better from just admitting the AI is "Artificial" and thus we can do what we like with it? How do you know it would even fear death?
Of course its defensible. The child has potential. An AI can be recreated if erased by supplying identical inputs and initial conditions. The child can not. This much is obvious. If I erase my AI, it isn't ended in the same way as if I erase a child. Why does everyone forget the implications of the "Artificial" part of "AI"? Too much sci fi?
You're missing the point. We did not for example define even the initial state of the baby's brain - we do not own the software state(if you want to use that poor analogy). Neither did we define completely it's hardware. It is a human being - not of our design (whether or not we were designed is not relevant here).
With an AI, we designed the hardware. We designed the software. We defined the initial conditions. We defined the inputs. So, clearly there is a difference. The AI, in essence is the sum of the inputs of its designers. Therefore they should decide what to do with the AI. The analogy simply does not hold.
How does it know what it is missing?
No Human is owned - that would be a violation of rights. But a computer for example (no matter how complex) is hardware which can be owned. Its software is merely a state of that machine which can also be owned. If I want to change the state of my software on my hardware, how can you say I'm ethically wrong? An AI I make is mine in a way no other intelligence can be. I can not own a person, neither can I own the state of their brain. But the state of the conditions inside hardware that I own, I do. I defined (at least initially) those conditions.
A hypothetical baby is created through normal (hopefully) natural biological process. Any AI is created through application of intelligence. Thus I don't find the analogy sufficiently good to base a decision on. It is unethical to kill the baby, but that does not imply it is unethical to wipe the AI. Though, why would you?
Ethically controversial more than loaded. It is your creation, why should you not have the right to wipe it?
Ethically loaded? How? I don't see how the brain would be suffering? Or are they worried about skynet?
No, but it hits southern Africa quite hard. But while America may be larger, it is certainly less corrupt. Its partial corruption may mess up the world far worse than Zimbabwe's total corruption, yes. But I think we can hardly call America "totally" corrupt. Unless OP intended a figure of speech and my lack of coffee got in the way.
And yet(surprisingly), america is not in africa. There is a lot of worry in South Africa for example, that the same thing will happen there - some crazy dictator will take over and screw the country. What people forget is that South Africa is not Zimbabwe. And you could hardly compare America to Africa. It is a different situation and things will go down differently.
In essence, in Zimbabwe they have Mugabe. In South Africa they have Julius Malema as their crazy potential dictator. Who've you got?
I have lived in a "Civil war torn African country." I have never lived in America, I must admit, but I have a hard time believing the level of corruption is anywhere near comparable to say, Zimbabwe. In fact I seriously doubt you understand what "total corruption" really means, until you actually experience it. I know exactly what it means. And after a long chat with my brother in America, you don't have it. Not even close.
And btw, this is not an argument, this is abuse. You want room 12b. :)
America is totally corrupt...
I'm not sure you know what that means. In fact look at any african country....
That is why I never reuse my email password and made it a long complicated sentence.... So, I might reuse the password from steam on something else, but the email is unique and (hopefully) secure...
I wouldn't worry. He'd be too scared to say anything. Just smile and wave....
Core 1:Where am I? Guess. Guess guess guess. I'm in space.
Core 1:Space Court. For people in space. Judge space sun presiding. Bam. Guilty. Of being in space. I'm in space.
Core 2: There's nothing in space! That's why it's space!
Oh, did I mention space is empty? That's why it's called "space", and not Earth.
In conclusion, it seems slashdot is filled with the personality cores from portal. I rest my case, Judge Space Sun!
Only if you consider pedophilia equivalent to science in the eyes of the church. Which it has never been.
So in other words, like most human run organizations it did some good and some bad? I'd actually say, much as I disagree with the catholic position, that they probably did more good for science then bad. Certainly the modern catholic church isn't anti-science.
Why not look up group dynamics to see why things are that way. This is not something unique to religion.
Well, the church has a history of condemning science,
[Citation Needed]
As I understand it, the current theory is that before the big bang, there was no "time" as such, so the question, "where did it come from" to a physicist is not meaningful.
A more interesting question is why did it come at all?
Lets put it this way, my argument is not that we can know everything. Science is a model and it will get better and better(may be never be complete), but there is no need to look for gaps to slot God in. If God is God he is God of the natural as well. It is insulting to both Religion and Science to suggest that just because we don't understand it, God did it. It diminishes God to something found in things we don't yet understand. And when our model grows to encompass those things, where did God go?
Actually, Coyne would be wrong there. The catholic church condemns pedophiles but not science. The two are not equivalent statements. Whether or not science and religion are compatible, Coyne here is guilty of using an argument designed to create an emotional not a logical reaction. Not that Haughts answer is sufficient. Again, neither party is clean. But I genuinely think if you came to Haught with some respect, he would be open to debate.
No, the placebo as far as I can see seems to be assumed afterwards. I.e. it is assumed prayer is the placebo.
I never offered to prove there was a purpose. All I said was that there is no evidence either way. You brought up the evidence question (99.99%), and I honestly would still be very interested in seeing that. Don't build strawmen here. If you say that my above statement is wrong, then please address the statement. Attacking the statement "there is a purpose" is futile, because I am not making that as a claim.
Then I've been lucky in the ones I've met. But I'd probably say the other fall into the lazy category. Just to put people in arbitrary boxes.....
I have nothing against them. I was merely pointing out that your philosophy also fits into that category. Why not debate the matter instead of an arbitrary "fail again"?
Sure prayer works. There are even some scientific studies on it. Mostly they attribute the effects to coincidence and the placebo effect. I will assert though that the effects are not always reproducible, so I don't assert there is a scientific reason to accept prayer.