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.
James: I agree with that assessment totally, and i hold to the view that the religious schism between Christians, Muslims, and Jews do in fact have more inherent danger than any other type of dissent nowadays, however, as long as those few controlling buttons on dangerous machines have non-affiliated fingers on them , and the feared 1% can retain control, the probability risk for catastrophe may be minimized. Therefore, those in the minority column, at least in this forum, should be the ones to downplay the effect, that the other 99% can have on a most likely outcome. (Not that the outcome relative to the danger it presents should be minimized, but the efficacy of the controls be maximized relative to the degree of danger presented.) There needs a disengage between the political, technical, and economic issues in order to lessen the confusion arising , as applies to social benefits, regardless of any differences between various forms of economic and social theory. It’s too late in the day to try to come to a linear discussion here, in my opinion.
Realize how many times (and far more than you know) the minority has been right. Why else would a minority rise to the occasion of continuing a battle with the majority if they didn’t have a reason?
It was a minority who said that the Earth is round. It was a minority who said that a machine can fly. It is a minor who said that a machine can beat a man at chess. And it is still a minority who says that Man is doomed by his own hand, through his reckless and lustful use of machines.
??? My god, you don’t realize that THEY are the ones causing all of this in the first place out of blind lust???
They are “the war mongers” who wanted to start the disasters that they would no longer have control over (literally the very same people, by relation, who caused the world wars), much the same as starting a religion that continues for generations, well beyond the control of those who started them. They cannot simply turn off Christianity and they have been trying for 5 centuries. And they cannot just turn off the addiction and lust for technological supremacy either and especially since they won’t have the urge until far beyond too late.
Arminius, the column with the least subscriptions who think machines will take over ALL human beings, are the ones not in agreement with the view, that it is possible to overcome the machines, even in an exponentially progressive growth in technology. I am using overcoming at once in a probabilistic sense of 'how likely can such and such occur' at the same time using the philosophical (Nietzchean) of 'overcoming. Nietzche tried to overcome the romantic pessimism of his day, and i think with this ontological-probable split, the pessimism (as almost an idiom by now) of probability over view point is hindered.
The pessimism shouldn’t be ascribed to those members who were in the minority column, the pessimism is an affective index, as much as ‘angst’. It is a general measure by which reference can be made toward a future progress.
By “pessimist”, I think Obe meant “doomsayer”.