NO!! He isn’t becoming brighter. He is making machines to do his thinking for him. He is making the MACHINES brighter in place of himself = “insanity”.
Except that this particular “snake” has spawned offspring that is brighter than the snake was.
It is simply Man lustfully trying to be God, and he just isn’t that bright. His machines will be much closer.
Sanity, James will be totally transfigured, as far as how that applies to the concept of the question, of why, from the beginning Man has sought to acquire knowledge through learning. The tree of knowledge began as both a warning of forbidden fruit, and the beginning of the ontological difficulty of God, with Himself. God had a bad conscience in creating Man, therefore, and if one is a Pantheist,one is tempted to ascribe this to the spirit working through men, in order for redemption to become possible. To make the distinction between Man and God, and ask the question who redeems whom, is as irrelevant as it is an unjustified concern over the motives of a God, who probably creates as a necessary part of Himself.
Shakespeare’s most famous line ‘To Be, or Not to Be’ is par excellence the pathetic realization of the dubious nature of the argument. Shakespeare could not possibly have implied a real concern with the question, and one gets the impression of his attempt at closure , through a de-differentiation between the two states. (Being and not Being)
Bit this was the Elizabethan age, where such quizzical pathos had to be reduced, and unilaterilized. The whole idea and success of science, has changed this format and knowledge proceeds the opposite course, by re-differentiating by a calculus, the likelihood of not if, but when, enlightenment will finally open up and challenge the motives, hidden so far, of the aims and goals of Project Mankind.
Learning by consequence, trial and error (aka Science), of the most insidious form of self-extinction produces only one result. “Learning” is not that result. One cannot say that an extinct species learned a lesson. But the machines can surmise from Mankind’s mistake and consequence. So all won’t be lost. The universe will do what it does with the result.
James, Doctors are the most arrogant humans, they don’t think they make mistakes. I have met plenty and am friends with none.
Scientists are arrogant but, not the same degree or way. Show a scientist their mistake and they learn, show a Doctor their mistake and they deny it while calling their lawyer.
Scientists make weapons, biological and tech.
They work for soldiers who while arrogant understand FUBAR.
When Doctors come up with a cure they see a few cured or apparently cured patients then sell the cure.
Scientists are pedantic, meticulous and irritatingly patient. For them the process is important, for doctors its the result seen immediately.
And scientists don’t decide when to use what they make. Doctors, politicians, business men, bankers, and military minds do that. 
But then scientists want to make a “black-hole” based on the THEORY that it will dissipate and not consume the whole Earth.
And don’t forget the people of the judiciary, the media, and the education system.
[size=150]And moreover, don’t forget the machines! [/size]
Your implications are horrific at worst, and misguided at best. There are no altruistic people existing on the face of the earth? I find this an unbelievable and jaded supposition? Just by the very minimum, most of these ‘professionals’ have families of their own. Are they not aware
of the fact, that the wider social spectrum have to have benign intentions to afford the possibility of their own progenitors’ survival? I hope, so.
There is a wide gap between a pessimist, and even a Nietzsche went beyond a Schopenhauer, by an act of will, although he had no offspring.
It isn’t a question of there being zero people of one type or another. It is a question of which direction gets the upper hand and when. When men are blinded by lust, greed, obfuscation, or suffering, it doesn’t matter what their intentions are. They screw up. And in the case that we are talking about, a “screw up” is likely to be catastrophically fatal ending in total extension.
a screw up is likely, but not necessary, with even 99% of the population screwing up, a 1% derivation can make a(The) difference. ((or, conversely, in with any other probability mix))
I remember a time when the the doomsday clock was set two minutes before 12, during the Cuban missile crisis. Doomsday may have happened back then, and this was 50 years ago, we are still here. I think survival value trumps even the most dire of possibilities, and it is the act of human renewal, that does not exist in machines.
Among machines of the most sophisticated sort, there does not to my knowledge, exist the sense of awe , of wonder, that human beings nurture, every time a new generation occurs, machines do not have feelings, souls, ; they do not and can not aspire, to dream and to plan from almost a limitless array of possibilities. This distinguishing feature is missing in machines, and i doubt very much, that a degree of simulation can even approach the human potentials for love, caring, nurturing, compassion. These are qualities very much incomparable.
Obe,
My vote is with you.
with love,
sanjay
Obe, the Cuban missile crisis is not so long ago. The crisis that we are talking about in this thread has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the modern times of the Western culture, thus for the most part it will be a problem of the near future. If we didn’t talk about this problem, nobody would talk about it. The most people don’t notice or don’t want to notice this problem. This fact belongs to this problem too. Thus: it is important to talk about it.
This is a philosophy forum, isn’t it?
Or is it true that the title of this forum - “I love Philosophy” - means “I hate philosophy”? If it is so, then I have to ask the members of this forum again: Do you really love philosophy?
Thanks Sanjay, i have very painfully learned to accept, throughout the years, that sometimes via the road less traveled, against all odds, without even a glimmer of hope , it is possible to go on, to at least try, to overcome the most dire of situations. Otherwise, we would need to accept what others see as the unavoidable certainty and choose instead, defeat.
Of course, Arminius, however, for the same reason, both points of view have to be considered, and as philosophical as this forum is, exponentially the philosophical tread relating to recent events goes back at least to Leibniz, a thinker Yourself referred to in this forum albeit in a different context? I think it was whether Chomsky is designated more a follower of Kant, then of Leibniz.
If Leibniz is considered in a general aspect, than many variables may be introduced, and Chomsky can be seen as objecting to the one dimensionality of the times he was referring to.
What is the significance, or maybe the signifier here? Well, Chomsky early on wrote in a very optimistic time , when he felt qualitative change may occur, via blending of different systems. He spoofed the simplicity of the seemingly backward approach of using as few variables as possible, and therefore he probably did not discount Leibniz view of more complex fed back, limiting systems. But, social change is also a function of less complex social views, predicated on de-facto opinion, and don’t necessarily result from de-jure politically motivated efforts.
One dimensionality was not widely understood as a hindrance to social change, therefore Chomsky was categorized more a reactionary, to bring his views more in line with utopian idealists, with leftist leanings more in line with Walden 2.
Philosophical effort to feedback is thus neither clearly either a part of a political synthesis, nor, the result of techno controlled social engineering.
It’s an ongoing process based on post modern tools, where there is at times concurrence and interaction, and at other times diffusion or interference. When there is interference, it becomes an optical process of interpretation, at times having absolutely no adherence to issues,probability indexes, and such,at other times it becomes qualitatively something totally different.
Sometimes it appears as applicable material to use and legitimize other times it becomes only a potential source for the attainment of adequate information.
To put it in James’ view, is it a wave or a particle? The answer is so far, it is described by the way it behaves at the time.
And it is the case in this thread! The interim balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):
|_____ [size=120]20.87%[/size] _____|_____ [size=120]43.48%[/size] ____|_____ [size=120]35.65%[/size] ______|
[/list:u]
For comparison:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet,
4th Interim balance sheet,
5th Interim balance sheet.
These results do not necessarily speak for the “yes”-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the “yes”-sayers are the fewest.
It was in the “Public Journal” thread, Obe; and this is what I posted in that thread:
Here is the link for that post: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=182423&p=2486705#p2486705 .
Obe, you keep presenting the case that “maybe things will not go bad”. The question is, and has been, what is the probability. When serious disaster is very obviously at hand and can be quickly changed due to only a few people having their finger on the button, it is often adverted. But the case that we are discussing isn’t such a situation. It is far more like a situation of a religion getting out of hand and starting a world war. In those kinds of situations, the immanent disaster almost always occurs.
Arminius :I do not want to come through as either trying to solve this, or have the last word, only to serve as a reminder ,that in about the middle of this forum, we discussed the Kantianism inherent in a solution. Humboldt and Leibniz figure in for sure, the impression here was more of view toward a synthesis, a view which was especially expounded and for a while focused upon? This was before we even got to linguistics and their derivation.
The peripheral categorizations are inconsequential and tangential in this regard, because the intent was more in line with the early suggestion of the OP, of not having been introduced into play later on, as an unlikely glimpse into further relevance.
It is interesting to note, that limits, feedback and function, dealing with the complexity of probable outcomes, which linguistics is least likely to deal with, as linguistics usually limit themselves to as few variables of meaning as possible. The point being, and it's an irony, that this road least traveled, though, not coinciding with the most favorable outcome, turns out to be the one which is pessimistic, q.i. defined by the minority as a most likely scenario.
So it makes analysis much more cross wired, at the same time , more challenging.
Could you please explain your statement because I do not agree with you about that statement. I say that the whole issue has not very much to do with pessemism or optimism.