do we deserve to perish in a nuclear holocaust?

Post Reply New Topic

A basic error that people make is in the concept of the process of thinking. They conceive that the virtual universe they carry around in their heads to deal with reality is superior to the thinking with materials and forces that the universe carries on continuously. It is, of course, not conscious thinking in the manner of human thought and it is, in human perspective, highly uneconomic and time consuming but nature has near infinite resources and time is of no concern. What happens in the universe is not random and is highly accretional. The process permits huge experimentation on a scale unavailable to humans and it eventually (by the evidence of our existence) solves very intricate and difficult problems. That is the competition and in this area it has come up with organics. We ourselves are part of the process and we may supplement the experimentation with inorganics but it is wise to be a bit humble over our capabilities.

The question that we should be asking is not whether we deserve it or not, but whether the next dominate species will evolve from cockroaches or pond scum after it does in fact happen, because in my opinion it will (or something else equally or more destructive). It is only a matter of time. Will we deserve it it? Does the fire ant colony deserve to be wiped out when someone pours gasoline down it? Does that answer in any way, shape, or form effect the out come? All things come to an end. That is all.

This discussion has boiled down to an almost religious area. Evidently you view robots equivalent to a second coming. I am fully aware that religion in general has no appeal for either one of us but my experience has lead me to be very suspicious of broad confidence in any futuristic propositions without very solid concrete indications. No doubt artificial intelligence has some interesting potential but my repeated frustrations with even the minuscule sector of my computer and general knowledge of how technology can and does fall apart in critical situations is a pretty strong indication that humanity, even the most expert humanity, has no difficulty in tying itself up into technological knots. The recent launch of the Microsoft mess called Vista that was no doubt years in development by people expert in the field bears witness to human tendencies to screw up. The proposals that are put forth on the superiority of a projected robotic takeover are amusing but require a leap of faith which has seemed to have pretty much overwhelmed you. Faith is believing without seeing. I don't do that. But my past experience with religious people who blandly accept the most silly things without question has made me aware that people with faith have lost the ability to think clearly. I do not doubt that you have better grounds for your faith than religious people but those grounds are simply insufficient for me.

Both biology and human technology have serious limitations. Theoretically artificial intelligence can surpass human intelligence and, it seems to me, considering the mess the world is in, that is not an impossible project. But there is an inherent intelligence within our physiology that dealt with microbes and viruses millions of years before Pasteur and was not what might be called conscious intellect. That intellect is still quite a bit superior to human conscious intellect and I have yet to see whether our inventions can even approach that.

Let me allay your suspicions. I merely have an inordinate respect for the billions of experiments that natural selections play with continuously. To put it as mildly as I can, religion and respect for God is, in my opinion, a rather large bucket of BS. But although the forces of nature are not consciously cleverer than humans nevertheless their ability to endlessly experiment in real time over billions of years is rather impressive.

I've voted no. If an all-out nuclear war began, and someone asked me at that moment, I'd say yes.

In other words: I prefer my answer to that question to be purely empirical.

That's a very valid point and I accept that you are convinced that your understanding can predict with total accuracy that artificial intelligence will surpass human capabilities in the relatively near future. Until I gain equal expertise I cannot absolutely refute your claims and will have to await developments to see if you may be correct. Nevertheless I retain very strong doubts and perhaps we should leave it at that.