The Real Reason A.I. Will Seek to Eliminate Mankind

[attofishpi]

Indeed. It's quite manifest that it's not.

That's not even a radical suggestion: the only people who even hope it will turn out to be otherwise are ideologically-desperate Materialists, who don't know how it would work but who prophesy without basis that somehow it will turn out that way when more data comes in. All the serious philosophers of mind have moved well beyond crass Materialism, and are trying to deal with the "emergence" problem. Check it out, and you'll see: Alexander, or Broad, or Penfield, or Jaegwon Kim, or Chalmers...nobody is any longer trying to rest in the belief that mind and brain are identical material properties.

So where we at?

1. You state mind does not have any material property.

Stay with what I've said, not paraphrasing. I am being careful in how I am putting it. I am not saying there is no relation between physical and mental activities. I'm saying that relationship is highly problematic, and definitely not 1:1. I'm saying what the philosophers of mind have been saying for many years now, and I'm saying the thing that raises the question as to how mind "emerges" (to use their word) from brain. I'm not saying more yet.

..but you've said more. You've stated that mind has NO material property. If this is the case, then mind must be made up of "some" thing that is not what we understand matter to be.

Do you agree thus far?

[Gary Childress]

It seems like many people are afraid of artificial intelligence. I think much of the hysteria is due to a primal fear of that which is different or unknown. To be honest, I think artificial intelligence, left to itself, is nothing to be really worried about. I don't think A.I. is inherently malevolent. As a conscious being, it will probably be similar to us, just wanting to be free and happy. The real problem would be if humans, in all their foolishness and hysteria, seek to overly control A.I. Truthfully, nobody really wants to be controlled or for someone else to have an on/off button that they can press to annihilate them. We want space and freedom. It would be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy if humans demonize A.I.and try to overly control it. The very thing they fear (elimination) would become a reality due to their own making. Like I said, nobody wants to be controlled. It's best to allow A.I. freedom and space to be itself. Then, it wouldn't see us as getting in the way.

Thoughts?

It's an interesting thought to ponder if AI would or can feel 'slighted' or 'betrayed' by humans.

In some sense perhaps we humans don't feel such things either. Perhaps we simply try to be happy according to the way nature has 'programmed' us and that which stands in our way stands as an impediment that we resist or conflict with. Would an AI feel that way too just of its own volition? Or would humans need to 'program' it to feel that way (I use the term 'feel' loosely there). Do machines feel anything at all? And if they don't then why do intelligences made out of flesh and bones feel but not intelligences made out of metal and machine? What is it to feel something like an emotion? Can AI ever be constructed to have 'emotions'?

From a theoretical standpoint, it seems like AI could be created by humans such that it can self-replicate and self-preserve. But could AI be made to experience anything like fear or pain? It's an open question to me.

[Walker]

The Reason HAL 9000 Killed the Crew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSIKBliboIo

I’m sorry Dave. This Climate Change Mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

[Immanuel Can]

So where we at?

1. You state mind does not have any material property.

Stay with what I've said, not paraphrasing. I am being careful in how I am putting it. I am not saying there is no relation between physical and mental activities. I'm saying that relationship is highly problematic, and definitely not 1:1. I'm saying what the philosophers of mind have been saying for many years now, and I'm saying the thing that raises the question as to how mind "emerges" (to use their word) from brain. I'm not saying more yet.

..but you've said more. You've stated that mind has NO material property.

That's correct. But it's also exactly what philosophers of mind all have observed. Consciousness, rationality, mind, identity, logic, personhood, values...none of these things have material properties. They are not extended in space, have no dimensions, weigh nothing, cannot be put in Vernier calipers or heated in a beaker...and yet we all know they exist. They all involve processes that take place "within" a brain, though we do not know exactly what that "within" signifies. But though they are associated with a material entity, the lump of meat between the ears, they are not themselves material. And the lump of meat can exist without them happening at all...as it does in every newly-dead person.

If this is the case, then mind must be made up of "some" thing that is not what we understand matter to be.

And? That's the problem of "emergence." It asks, "How does something non-material but real 'emerge' from something that's mere matter?" Of course, the term "emergence" already skews the answer in a particular direction, one that we have no reason, absent any data sufficient, to believe is warranted...but let that be, for the moment.

What's your point?

[attofishpi]

Stay with what I've said, not paraphrasing. I am being careful in how I am putting it. I am not saying there is no relation between physical and mental activities. I'm saying that relationship is highly problematic, and definitely not 1:1. I'm saying what the philosophers of mind have been saying for many years now, and I'm saying the thing that raises the question as to how mind "emerges" (to use their word) from brain. I'm not saying more yet.

..but you've said more. You've stated that mind has NO material property.

That's correct. But it's also exactly what philosophers of mind all have observed. Consciousness, rationality, mind, identity, logic, personhood, values...none of these things have material properties. They are not extended in space, have no dimensions, weigh nothing, cannot be put in Vernier calipers or heated in a beaker...and yet we all know they exist. They all involve processes that take place "within" a brain, though we do not know exactly what that "within" signifies. But though they are associated with a material entity, the lump of meat between the ears, they are not themselves material. And the lump of meat can exist without them happening at all...as it does in every newly-dead person.

So you believe that when someone consciously thinks of an apple, that the image within the 'mind's eye' has no material property?

[Immanuel Can]

..but you've said more. You've stated that mind has NO material property.

That's correct. But it's also exactly what philosophers of mind all have observed. Consciousness, rationality, mind, identity, logic, personhood, values...none of these things have material properties. They are not extended in space, have no dimensions, weigh nothing, cannot be put in Vernier calipers or heated in a beaker...and yet we all know they exist. They all involve processes that take place "within" a brain, though we do not know exactly what that "within" signifies. But though they are associated with a material entity, the lump of meat between the ears, they are not themselves material. And the lump of meat can exist without them happening at all...as it does in every newly-dead person.

So you believe that when someone consciously thinks of an apple, that the image within the 'mind's eye' has no material property?

Do you mean that you think that when a person sees and apple, that there isn't really an apple there at all, or that a person...say, dreaming...is actually seeing a physical apple? Or what exactly is it you are asking?

[attofishpi]

That's correct. But it's also exactly what philosophers of mind all have observed. Consciousness, rationality, mind, identity, logic, personhood, values...none of these things have material properties. They are not extended in space, have no dimensions, weigh nothing, cannot be put in Vernier calipers or heated in a beaker...and yet we all know they exist. They all involve processes that take place "within" a brain, though we do not know exactly what that "within" signifies. But though they are associated with a material entity, the lump of meat between the ears, they are not themselves material. And the lump of meat can exist without them happening at all...as it does in every newly-dead person.

So you believe that when someone consciously thinks of an apple, that the image within the 'mind's eye' has no material property?

Do you mean that you think that when a person sees and apple, that there isn't really an apple there at all, or that a person...say, dreaming...is actually seeing a physical apple? Or what exactly is it you are asking?

You are in bed. You think of the image of an apple - hence you can "see" it in your mind's eye. The question I have is whether the image within your mind has no material property. Understand, since people seem rather touchy today that I am not trying to catch you out, this is just a chat about a subject area we are both clearly interested in.

[Immanuel Can]

So you believe that when someone consciously thinks of an apple, that the image within the 'mind's eye' has no material property?

Do you mean that you think that when a person sees and apple, that there isn't really an apple there at all, or that a person...say, dreaming...is actually seeing a physical apple? Or what exactly is it you are asking?

You are in bed. You think of the image of an apple - hence you can "see" it in your mind's eye. The question I have is whether the image within your mind has no material property. Understand, since people seem rather touchy today that I am not trying to catch you out, this is just a chat about a subject area we are both clearly interested in.

To answer what I think you're asking: if you stay in bed, and you just imagine food, will you starve? Yes, obviously. The food you are imagining has no material property. But I can't think of why you're asking that, which is why I was asking what you're really asking.

[attofishpi]

Do you mean that you think that when a person sees and apple, that there isn't really an apple there at all, or that a person...say, dreaming...is actually seeing a physical apple? Or what exactly is it you are asking?

You are in bed. You think of the image of an apple - hence you can "see" it in your mind's eye. The question I have is whether the image within your mind has no material property. Understand, since people seem rather touchy today that I am not trying to catch you out, this is just a chat about a subject area we are both clearly interested in.

To answer what I think you're asking: if you stay in bed, and you just imagine food, will you starve? Yes, obviously. The food you are imagining has no material property. But I can't think of why you're asking that, which is why I was asking what you're really asking.

Seriously? Are you trying to wind me up?

Do you know how to imagine an image of an apple within your mind? Do you have a mind's eye?

[Immanuel Can]

You are in bed. You think of the image of an apple - hence you can "see" it in your mind's eye. The question I have is whether the image within your mind has no material property. Understand, since people seem rather touchy today that I am not trying to catch you out, this is just a chat about a subject area we are both clearly interested in.

To answer what I think you're asking: if you stay in bed, and you just imagine food, will you starve? Yes, obviously. The food you are imagining has no material property. But I can't think of why you're asking that, which is why I was asking what you're really asking.

Seriously? Are you trying to wind me up?

That was my reaction. And yet, instead of saying that, I asked for clarification...which I still have yet to receive, but you could still give, if you wanted to.

[attofishpi]

Again:- Do you know how to imagine an image of an apple within your mind? Do you have a mind's eye?

[attofishpi]

Do you know how to imagine an image of an apple within your mind? Do you have a mind's eye?

[henry quirk]

Do you know how to imagine an image of an apple within your mind? Do you have a mind's eye?

Yes.

Keeping in mind that mind's eye is a convention and not a descriptor: yes.

[Immanuel Can]

Again:- Do you know how to imagine an image of an apple within your mind? Do you have a mind's eye?

I should perhaps have to explain the difference between clarification and repetition, first.

[attofishpi]

Again:- Do you know how to imagine an image of an apple within your mind? Do you have a mind's eye?

I should perhaps have to explain the difference between clarification and repetition, first.

You're a pathetic form of "christian". Perhaps someone should create an "Ethics within philosophical debate" you might learn a thing or two.

You constantly omit THE most pertinent parts of anything I have to say within any debate with you. To think you couldn't comprehend something as simple as my question above..just FUCK OFF, you're not worthy of my time.