Not quite. While a naive naturalists point of view suggests that humans should minimize artificially interferring with natural selection, or else homo sapiens (us) would weaken and plagued by horrible diseases, etc.
I point out that through the use of technology by our ancestors (fire and stone tools), they shed the need for huge muscular jaws for the crappy jaw and teeth that you and I use today. Sure, one can argue that through our unnatural meddling with nature, our jaws and teeth had weakened, but that's clearly absurd.
Return to the objections you have stated. If homo sapiens as a species, either through physical or cultural evolution, was able adapt so that people who are otherwise too sick or ill to make meaningful contribution in society, then I ask you, why would that not be a good thing?
Imagine a world without people like Stephen Hawking...
Your reasoning is valid but impractical. There is no reason why we can't spend money on space exploration and solve socio-political problems at the same time. And the problems you have cited (AIDS, food distribution, etc.) are not caused by money spent on space exploration. Furthermore, one can be fairly sure that the problems will not go away because of the minor additional funding.
This always confuses me. The Earth is about 8 light seconds away from the Sun (don't they call it 1 AU or something?) I'd guess that distance between Earth and Mars is less than 10 AU. Therefore shouldn't the round trip time between Mars and Earth be less than 10 * 8 seconds * 2 == 160 seconds 3 minutes?
We need an "Adam Smith" to write some books for the Open Source community. Sure, by developing software with Open Source, one gives up control compare to closed source model. Just as a free market econonmy has less control over a controlled econonmy. But one has to realize that the invisible hands of Open Source will guide development to a state that best satisifies all participants, developers, users alike.
Replace the word "robot" with "US soldier", and your post still makes sense. I find it interesting the media keep us abreast with daily reports on troop casualties, but fail to report on civilian casualties.
I thought one was supposed to be welcome to use Open Source software to build baby mulchers. (which coincidentally isn't far from what the IDF and the terrorists are doing)
being a scientist, what evidence have you considered that supports/denies the following:
1. life has no meaning 2. there does not exist fundamental right/wrong 3. consciousness does not survive beyond death
If there is no evidence (or can be no evidence) that can either strengthen or weaken the above claims, would a scientific mind simply conclude that more research (or more grants, if you're a professional) needs to be done?
While I'm not a chess player, nor even an AI person... just because you could not understand the mechanisms behind your decisions in finding a proper move, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not the same for any particular AI chess program.
Also note the Turing test does not care about the mechanisms for generating apparent intelligent capabilities, only the result matters.
that's true... everytime the AI people came up with better intelligent capabilities than humans, the humans re-defined intelligence. Now is chess, next is go... what next?
And the thing is... who cares? AI is not about philosophy, it's about automating intelligent capabilites. We'll let the speculations to the philosophers (or slashdotters).
ahh... right, the court would probably go with the "spirit" of the license, instead of an obviously obscure interpretation designed to circumvent the license.
wait a minute, does that mean I am allowed to use QT on all internal applications of a company, free of charge, as long as I don't distribute it to outside of the company?
Slashdot Mirror
What did China ever do to you, USA?
watch out for inflation
Hold on a minute, both physical (genetic) evolution, and cultural (technology) evolution can contribute to the long term survival of a species.
Not quite. While a naive naturalists point of view suggests that humans should minimize artificially interferring with natural selection, or else homo sapiens (us) would weaken and plagued by horrible diseases, etc.
...
I point out that through the use of technology by our ancestors (fire and stone tools), they shed the need for huge muscular jaws for the crappy jaw and teeth that you and I use today. Sure, one can argue that through our unnatural meddling with nature, our jaws and teeth had weakened, but that's clearly absurd.
Return to the objections you have stated. If homo sapiens as a species, either through physical or cultural evolution, was able adapt so that people who are otherwise too sick or ill to make meaningful contribution in society, then I ask you, why would that not be a good thing?
Imagine a world without people like Stephen Hawking
Your reasoning is valid but impractical. There is no reason why we can't spend money on space exploration and solve socio-political problems at the same time. And the problems you have cited (AIDS, food distribution, etc.) are not caused by money spent on space exploration. Furthermore, one can be fairly sure that the problems will not go away because of the minor additional funding.
This always confuses me. The Earth is about 8 light seconds away from the Sun (don't they call it 1 AU or something?) I'd guess that distance between Earth and Mars is less than 10 AU. Therefore shouldn't the round trip time between Mars and Earth be less than 10 * 8 seconds * 2 == 160 seconds 3 minutes?
I haven't seen any pictures of this plane... but am I the only one who pictures it as one of those Macross/Robotech robot planes?
it's built-in to the religion:
The set of all people are sinners, hence it is a Christian's duty to save them.
Some may say it's a viral religion.
We present to you:
...
Hate Crime Laws:
A Savage Hypocrisy
We need an "Adam Smith" to write some books for the Open Source community. Sure, by developing software with Open Source, one gives up control compare to closed source model. Just as a free market econonmy has less control over a controlled econonmy. But one has to realize that the invisible hands of Open Source will guide development to a state that best satisifies all participants, developers, users alike.
Either these people presents a threat to society, in which care they should still be in prison, or they have been rehab'ed and should be left alone.
Speaking as a non-parent of course.
What do you want a fucking medal?!! It's your JOB to avoid civilian casualties. It's your JOB to avoid friendly fires.
Great job bombing those Marxist Canadians btw.
you sure make me miss the old USSR, perhaps the EU and their NATO-independent military can put a leash on your ass ...
Since the US has 2 parties, the US is twice as democratic as China. Furthermore, Canada has 4-ish parties, Canada is twice as democratic as the US.
Ignorant_JackAss != American ... (I hope)
yeah, he's pratically a terrorist... we should regime change his ass!!
Replace the word "robot" with "US soldier", and your post still makes sense. I find it interesting the media keep us abreast with daily reports on troop casualties, but fail to report on civilian casualties.
Damn... you really let the guy have it. I almost feel sorry for him now.
Pedro
(proud user/admin of SA since a month ago)
ahh, excellent. Then I agree with you completely then.
I thought one was supposed to be welcome to use Open Source software to build baby mulchers. (which coincidentally isn't far from what the IDF and the terrorists are doing)
being a scientist, what evidence have you considered that supports/denies the following:
1. life has no meaning
2. there does not exist fundamental right/wrong
3. consciousness does not survive beyond death
If there is no evidence (or can be no evidence) that can either strengthen or weaken the above claims, would a scientific mind simply conclude that more research (or more grants, if you're a professional) needs to be done?
While I'm not a chess player, nor even an AI person... just because you could not understand the mechanisms behind your decisions in finding a proper move, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not the same for any particular AI chess program.
Also note the Turing test does not care about the mechanisms for generating apparent intelligent capabilities, only the result matters.
that's true... everytime the AI people came up with better intelligent capabilities than humans, the humans re-defined intelligence. Now is chess, next is go... what next?
And the thing is... who cares? AI is not about philosophy, it's about automating intelligent capabilites. We'll let the speculations to the philosophers (or slashdotters).
ahh... right, the court would probably go with the "spirit" of the license, instead of an obviously obscure interpretation designed to circumvent the license.
wait a minute, does that mean I am allowed to use QT on all internal applications of a company, free of charge, as long as I don't distribute it to outside of the company?
sweet...