Philosophers, What's Wrong with This

[Hee_Zen]

Can a computer diagnose itself? What if a part needs to be replaced? How will all of the raw materials needed to create parts be mined and turned into suitable material?

Can you?

 

[DanAl]

Machines cannot reason, reason is an abstract (non-bodily) phenomena:

2+2=5…wrong.

molesting a little child and killing her for pleasure…wrong.

A machine cannot grasp abstract thought nor morality.

 

[DanAl]

Stephen Hawking thinks that new, ever improving, " thinking " machines will make humans obsolete, will be the end of mankind. So reports the BBC News. So why is Hawking wrong?

bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

Linus2nd

However, after reading the article, unthinking machines could destroy humanity. It’s an if, a speculation, mere possibility, like aliens inhibiting higher dimensions.

 

[inocente]

Not because I say so…but because there is a created order confirmed by science and religions through all of history. Why are you guessing?

The word order has two meanings, as in pecking order or as in law and order. I think you’ll find that in the phrase natural order it means the latter, not the former. But perhaps in a parallel universe science and religions through all of history labored away to order species by greatness, and debated long into the night whether dogs are greater than cats.

Your links were of a computer game, computer program, preliminary research and wiki pages. None contain AI nor a self replicating machine.

To summarize the conversation: you imagined yourself to be a psychiatrist who could diagnose Dr Hawking as mentally ill on the basis of your opinion of some of his ideas; by that exact same logic you unwittingly proved that all Catholics are demented ; and when information was linked to bring you up to speed on the subject, you either didn’t read it or dismissed it out of hand.

Machines cannot reason, reason is an abstract (non-bodily) phenomena:

2+2=5…wrong.

By your 2+2=5 example, you apparently believe that computers can’t compute, a claim which doth not compute. Reasoning requires logic and the recall of existing information, both areas where computers are far superior to us. That’s the entire reason they were invented, because we’re just not very good at it. You might do better arguing that machines are not good at emotion, although this is now being developed in areas such as reward oriented systems and affective computing.

---

Can anyone cite a robust philosophical argument why Hawking is wrong - an argument made by a professional philosopher that machines could not in principle run the world?

 

[tskrobacz]

I am insisting on it because you seem to be asserting that the definition exists and that it is the crux of your argument that machines can never make humans obsolete.

If you agree that it makes no sense to attempt to scientifically assert that humans will always be greater then computers then okay. No shame in being wrong.

But you refuse to state why a scientific argument is greater than other arguments…hmmm

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You seem to concede here that while physical factors may prevent it, there’s no reason in principle why it couldn’t logically happen.

That’s a particular theological view though, while you asked for philosophers.

We always take theologians . Besides, you aren’t a philosopher and you are here all the time.

We know there are billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, so our neck of the woods is infinitesimal. We believe on the basis of evidence that the universe has been around for 13.7 billion years and Homo sapiens for only 200 000 years, so the universe has spent all but the last 0.0015% of its time without us, and there’s no physical reason why it won’t be here long after we’ve gone extinct.

And what has that got to do with the tea in China?

So philosophically, in terms of cold logic, I’d say your theology that the universe is designed for us, could be skating on thin ice.

One has to have faith that God’s goodness will not fail, even if we do…

I work in information technology, and if you look at its history in popular culture, there has always been an unease right from when mainframes first appeared. We can see that modern society would collapse instantly without computers and networks, and most industries would collapse without robots, even flying a plane relies on them now, as do many things in the military, medicine, spacecraft, etc.

I think the underlying issue behind the unease is whether this headlong rush into high technology is ultimately good or bad. It could trip us up long before machines could take over, but the dangers don’t often get debated, we just gratefully accept the latest gismos. So if Hawking helps fire up that debate then it would be no bad thing, imho.

Yes, there are things we could do but which shouldn’t be done. It is hard to keep the genie in the bottle, especially when men see dollars and fame at the end.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Can anyone cite a robust philosophical argument why Hawking is wrong - an argument made by a professional philosopher that machines could not in principle run the world?

Are you presuming there can only be a robust argument against Hawking if it is made by a professional philosopher?

The old appeal to authority fallacy.

It doesn’t take a professional philosopher to refute Hawking’s philosophy. Certainly Hawking is no professional philosopher. I’d say he an amateur in the worst possible way since he appears to be a victim of the philosophy called scientism.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Are you presuming there can only be a robust argument against Hawking if it is made by a professional philosopher?

The old appeal to authority fallacy.

It doesn’t take a professional philosopher to refute Hawking’s philosophy. Certainly Hawking is no professional philosopher. I’d say he an amateur in the worst possible way since he appears to be a victim of the philosophy called scientism.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I was wondering when will someone bring up the already existing examples of artificial, self-reproducing entities… which exhibit many features of life. They spread, they mutate, they change, they prey upon their hosts, sometimes even kill them. Any guess what I am talking about?

Looks like no one was willing to pick up this particular “glove”. Of course I talk about the computer viruses, which are not all malevolent. Viruses try to maintain their integrity in a changing environment, just like organic life does. They spread, by creating a replica of themselves. They can even change and mutate. The infobots which scan the web for new information are not malevolent, while other viruses try to inflict harm on their hosts, just like organic parasites do. So they exhibit the most important attributes of “life”.

 

[DanAl]

By your 2+2=5 example, you apparently believe that computers can’t compute, a claim which doth not compute. Reasoning requires logic and the recall of existing information, both areas where computers are far superior to us. That’s the entire reason they were invented, because we’re just not very good at it. You might do better arguing that machines are not good at emotion, although this is now being developed in areas such as reward oriented systems and affective computing.

---

Can anyone cite a robust philosophical argument why Hawking is wrong - an argument made by a professional philosopher that machines could not in principle run the world?

Never said computers cannot compute, I said they cannot* reason*. It might possible that machines can “run” the world (whatever that means). But they are unthinking machines, who follow programs in a fashion that is determined, random or both ways imposed by humans.

 

[cerad3]

But you refuse to state why a scientific argument is greater than other arguments…hmmm

Possibly because I never claimed that scientific arguments are greater than other arguments.

 

[tskrobacz]

Possibly because I never claimed that scientific arguments are greater than other arguments.

Why do you insist on a scientific definition…is science itself “greater”?

I am insisting on it because you seem to be asserting that the definition exists and that it is the crux of your argument that machines can never make humans obsolete

Your words…not mine.

 

[inocente]

We always take theologians . Besides, you aren’t a philosopher and you are here all the time.

I’ve only ever met one real professional philosopher here. What I meant is that you asked for philosophical views, i.e. based on reasoning and logic, but you gave a theological view based on revelation.

And what has that got to do with the tea in China?

I mean that your theological argument, that the universe is made for us, is far less tenable on grounds of logic alone than Hawking’s argument.

One has to have faith that God’s goodness will not fail, even if we do…

During the Cold War, there were people who believed that benevolent aliens were watching and would intervene to save us from nuclear annihilation. No doubt others hoped God would intervene. Seems like wishful thinking to me.

Yes, there are things we could do but which shouldn’t be done. It is hard to keep the genie in the bottle, especially when men see dollars and fame at the end.

When you’re right you’re right.

 

[inocente]

Are you presuming there can only be a robust argument against Hawking if it is made by a professional philosopher?

The old appeal to authority fallacy.

It doesn’t take a professional philosopher to refute Hawking’s philosophy. Certainly Hawking is no professional philosopher. I’d say he an amateur in the worst possible way since he appears to be a victim of the philosophy called scientism.

No, I was disappointed by the many non-arguments, and wondered if anyone knew of any real arguments.

Any real philosopher would know that attacking Hawking’s character is not a rational argument, it’s a fallacy. I see you’re yet another person who doesn’t know the difference.

Do you have an argument that machines could not take over which is based on logic and reasoning, i.e. a philosophical argument, rather than just more ad hominem, fiat and twitter?

 

[inocente]

Never said computers cannot compute, I said they cannot* reason*. It might possible that machines can “run” the world (whatever that means). But they are unthinking machines, who follow programs in a fashion that is determined, random or both ways imposed by humans.

I linked some summary articles earlier which cite many examples of systems which don’t follow rigid rules. It took biological life three billion years to get to Homo sapiens. Computers have only been around for 50 years, and already they are capable of a lot more than you imagine.

 

[BrassAnkles]

It took biological life three billion years to get to Homo sapiens.

This is an unproven theory and I understand this is not allowed to be discussed on this forum.

Computers have only been around for 50 years, and already they are capable of a lot more than you imagine.

I would not be surprised as I have done programming and used computers since the 1980’s because I am an engineer. Computer only do what we tell them, they cannot do anything else. A simple mosquito can learn while a billion dollar computer cannot.

 

[inocente]

This is an unproven theory and I understand this is not allowed to be discussed on this forum.

What theory? I simply stated a fact.

OK. For YECs and any others who don’t believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old: Homo sapiens have been around for 6000 years and computers only for 50 years, and already they are capable of a lot more than you imagine.

I would not be surprised as I have done programming and used computers since the 1980’s because I am an engineer. Computer only do what we tell them, they cannot do anything else. A simple mosquito can learn while a billion dollar computer cannot.

You’ve been told that’s false. Links have been cited which prove that’s false.

You tried to assassinate Hawking’s character, not realizing that by your logic you were saying all Catholics are also mentally ill.

You then switched into broken record mode by repeatedly making false assertions, with no argumentation, no logic, no reasoning.

Please don’t post to me again, you’ve made your point such as it is, I’m not going to believe in falsehoods no matter how many times you repeat them.

 

[BrassAnkles]

What theory? I simply stated a fact.

OK. For YECs and any others who don’t believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old: Homo sapiens have been around for 6000 years and computers only for 50 years, and already they are capable of a lot more than you imagine.

You’ve been told that’s false. Links have been cited which prove that’s false.

You tried to assassinate Hawking’s character, not realizing that by your logic you were saying all Catholics are also mentally ill.

You then switched into broken record mode by repeatedly making false assertions, with no argumentation, no logic, no reasoning.

Please don’t post to me again, you’ve made your point such as it is, I’m not going to believe in falsehoods no matter how many times you repeat them.

You stated:

“It took biological life three billion years to get to Homo sapiens”

This is a theory, not fact, and this theory is not allowed to be discussed on the forums.

Regarding your references they are only conclusive is one considers science fiction writing to be reality.

 

[VyMajoris]

They are going to run out of battery.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve only ever met one real professional philosopher here. What I meant is that you asked for philosophical views, i.e. based on reasoning and logic, but you gave a theological view based on revelation.

Poetic license, even scientists are welcome. There, that should patch things up.

I mean that your theological argument, that the universe is made for us, is far less tenable on grounds of logic alone than Hawking’s argument.

I think it is a pretty sound theological argument. I can’t site any quotations but I believe all the Popes of history would agree, I bet it is even in the Bible some where. At least it can be inferred.

I still haven’t got a philosophical argument, unless one agrees that man is at the summit of creation which indicates a natural order amongst creation. And it is not likely that man will allow machines to replace their creator. I think man is alert enough to prevent any " take over. "

During the Cold War, there were people who believed that benevolent aliens were watching and would intervene to save us from nuclear annihilation. No doubt others hoped God would intervene. Seems like wishful thinking to me.

I was unaware of any such imaginative speculations, I think you have been watching too much Si-Fi. All good things are to be attributed to God as their ultimate cause. So God was watching over us, working through men under the influence of their Angels.

When you’re right you’re right.

Gee whizz, finally said something you agree with

Linus2nd