Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.

---

So, a complete revamping of human nature.

Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?

---

The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.

---

AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.

---

Machine learning sez Hi.

---

Because a human programmed it so.

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.

---

So, a complete revamping of human nature.

Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?

---

The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.

---

AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.

---

Machine learning sez Hi.

---

Because a human programmed it so.

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.

---

So, a complete revamping of human nature.

Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?

---

The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.

---

AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.

---

Machine learning sez Hi.

---

Because a human programmed it so.

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

---

No, the thing about science is that truth is a consideration. Proof matters, as in claiming reincarnation is truth.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

---

No, the thing about science is that truth is a consideration. Proof matters, as in claiming reincarnation is truth.

---

When something is unknown, an honest man will say "I don't know". You are TS are, well, not willing to admit the limits of your knowledge, nor concede that labs don't answer all important questions.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.

---

So, a complete revamping of human nature.

Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?

---

The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.

---

AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.

---

Machine learning sez Hi.

---

Because a human programmed it so.

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.

---

So, a complete revamping of human nature.

Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?

---

The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.

---

AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.

---

Machine learning sez Hi.

---

Because a human programmed it so.

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

---

No, the thing about science is that truth is a consideration. Proof matters, as in claiming reincarnation is truth.

---

When something is unknown, an honest man will say "I don't know". You are TS are, well, not willing to admit the limits of your knowledge, nor concede that labs don't answer all important questions.

---

Of course we are. In fact, we are more likely to acknowledge limitations, seeing as how we exclude supernatural claims.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

---

No, the thing about science is that truth is a consideration. Proof matters, as in claiming reincarnation is truth.

---

When something is unknown, an honest man will say "I don't know". You are TS are, well, not willing to admit the limits of your knowledge, nor concede that labs don't answer all important questions.

---

Of course we are. In fact, we are more likely to acknowledge limitations, seeing as how we exclude supernatural claims.

---

Actually, all you are doing is excluding what you do not like, and ignoring flaws in tour assumptions.

As is common in history.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

Wow that first page was filled with such ignorance... First with the idea that anyone thinks the universe came from nothing, then the guys thinking Christianity in the US is being persecuted.

Why do I even bother? When people are so bent upon parroting ignorance there is no true discussion, just a series of loosely related monologues.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

---

Enough with the insults, try getting back on topic.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

---

Enough with the insults, try getting back on topic.

---

Poor quash, so much denial and so petulant when called on it.

And I have been on topic all along, too bad you don't like where the topic goes sometimes.

Sorry y'all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

---

Enough with the insults, try getting back on topic.

---

Poor quash, so much denial and so petulant when called on it.

And I have been on topic all along, too bad you don't like where the topic goes sometimes.

---

Your answers are more insult than fact or opinion

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

All the more reason for a humanistic science of morality approach to global interaction with one another.

---

So, a complete revamping of human nature.

Perhaps we should strive to create a New Man, one who is selfless, learned, healthy, and (of course) non-religious, not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, and who has lost nationalistic sentiments in favor of this new global interaction. That's what we want in this new World of Science, isn't it?

---

The development of AI is headed in that direction, for better or for worse. We need to be cautious with AI. I would settle for humans just considering harm and well being to others in their interactions.

---

AI is simply human programmed using fast-calculating machines. AI will be nothing but human programming with half the due care.

---

Machine learning sez Hi.

---

Because a human programmed it so.

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

Science, as applied, is always open to testing and questioning accepted norms in an effort to find answers, and understand reality. Relgion, in its hubris, dislikes being questioned, and presumes to know the answers before the questions are asked.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

---

Enough with the insults, try getting back on topic.

---

Poor quash, so much denial and so petulant when called on it.

And I have been on topic all along, too bad you don't like where the topic goes sometimes.

---

Your answers are more insult than fact or opinion

---

That is your opinion, and of course I disagree. How long until quash complains that you are off-topic simply for responding to a post that is not his?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

---

No, the thing about science is that truth is a consideration. Proof matters, as in claiming reincarnation is truth.

---

When something is unknown, an honest man will say "I don't know". You are TS are, well, not willing to admit the limits of your knowledge, nor concede that labs don't answer all important questions.

---

Of course we are. In fact, we are more likely to acknowledge limitations, seeing as how we exclude supernatural claims.

---

Our knowledge is limited. Knowledge is unlimited.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No one's saying otherwise. But it's a moot point when the scientistic state becomes the object of worship.

---

We've never had one of those. Except on The SImpsons.

---

Or you and TS here ...

---

Lying is not a good look for a supernatural morality.

---

Nor for you quash, but you can't accept that we know you and TS are complete fan boys for men in lab coats.

If someone claiming to be a scientist says it, you love it, truth be damned.

---

No, the thing about science is that truth is a consideration. Proof matters, as in claiming reincarnation is truth.

---

When something is unknown, an honest man will say "I don't know". You are TS are, well, not willing to admit the limits of your knowledge, nor concede that labs don't answer all important questions.

---

Of course we are. In fact, we are more likely to acknowledge limitations, seeing as how we exclude supernatural claims.

---

Our knowledge is limited. Knowledge is unlimited.

---

Assumption is the problem, though. A lot of people count assumption as knowledge.

Some do that with religion, but secularists are just as guilty (looking at climate change alarmists, for example).

TexasScientist said:

---

Science, as applied, is always open to testing and questioning accepted norms in an effort to find answers, and understand reality. Relgion, in its hubris, dislikes being questioned, and presumes to know the answers before the questions are asked.

---

Believing that all of reality is only what we can scientifically observe requires.... faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

---

Enough with the insults, try getting back on topic.

---

Poor quash, so much denial and so petulant when called on it.

And I have been on topic all along, too bad you don't like where the topic goes sometimes.

---

Your answers are more insult than fact or opinion

---

That is your opinion, and of course I disagree. How long until quash complains that you are off-topic simply for responding to a post that is not his?

---

weak

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

It will go beyond its programming, that's the important point.

---

And what if 'going beyond its programming' reveals poor programming?

You can't seriously be arguing there is conscious decision going on by the machine.

---

Poor programming is a separate issue. I'm not getting into consciousness questions, I am saying that AI allows for the possibility of a machine exceeding its programming, which is the concern raised by ATL and TS.

---

And that is another reason to check claims by scientists. Inventions sometimes have side effects, and creating something just because you can do it is sometimes disastrous in effect.

That's called hubris, and philosophers have warned against it for thousands of years.

---

Sigh. I know, that has been the point since it was raised by TS and ATL...

---

And you keep ignoring the point that those valid warnings often come from non-scientists, the people thinking in ethical terms like religious leaders.

---

Not ignoring it at all, ethicists are certainly part of the discussion. Just trying to get you on track.

---

Denial is strong with quash.

---

When you reach the point where you have nothing to offer? Just hush.

There was a nice discussion going about how AI factors into all this.

---

A good man admits when he is wrong. Hopefully, quash will get to that point one day.

---

Enough with the insults, try getting back on topic.

---

Poor quash, so much denial and so petulant when called on it.

And I have been on topic all along, too bad you don't like where the topic goes sometimes.

---

Your answers are more insult than fact or opinion

---

That is your opinion, and of course I disagree. How long until quash complains that you are off-topic simply for responding to a post that is not his?

---

weak

---

just noting the facts. Care to discuss the topic?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science, as applied, is always open to testing and questioning accepted norms in an effort to find answers, and understand reality. Relgion, in its hubris, dislikes being questioned, and presumes to know the answers before the questions are asked.

---

Believing that all of reality is only what we can scientifically observe requires.... faith.

---

Reality can be observed, we just may not have the ability or technology yet. Although, I will concede there are things we may never fully understand before our time runs out. Maybe AI will take over at some point and finish what we can't. After all, it will be created in our image. LOL.

Quote:

---

Maybe AI will take over at some point and finish what we can't. After all, it will be created in our image. LOL.

---

I agree with you fully, that intelligence can only be created by intelligence; it can not arise spontaneously via undirected processes.

Darwin has replaced God for some.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe AI will take over at some point and finish what we can't. After all, it will be created in our image. LOL.

---

I agree with you fully, that intelligence can only be created by intelligence; it can not arise spontaneously via undirected processes.

---

Where is the evidence of direction?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe AI will take over at some point and finish what we can't. After all, it will be created in our image. LOL.

---

I agree with you fully, that intelligence can only be created by intelligence; it can not arise spontaneously via undirected processes.

---

Except we're here, along with some other life that is intelligent; but it did evolve, just not spontaneously.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Darwin has replaced God for some.

---

Acceptance of reality has replaced mythology for some. I don't know anyone who falls on their knee praying to Darwin, nor do I know anyone who believes Darwin had all the answers. He was just the first to recognize what he observed and conceptualize as evolving change in species. Research has expanded upon and refined his original ideas. Something, religion doesn't permit.

TexasScientist:

"Acceptance of reality has replaced mythology for some."

Actually, your statement merely shows you have replaced one mythology for another. Perhaps you do not know what 'mythology' means?

"I don't know anyone who falls on their knee praying to Darwin, nor do I know anyone who believes Darwin had all the answers. He was just the first to recognize what he observed and conceptualize as evolving change in species."

Or rephrased, you ignore the blind trust some people put in Darwin's theories, taking them as truth even where they are incomplete or sometimes wrong. The 'evolving change' phrase also applies to the convenient excuses in interpretation to insist Darwin was right. The devotion to Darwin as a religion is apparent in the use of his name to validate supposition and guesswork.

"Research has expanded upon and refined his original ideas. Something, religion doesn't permit."

Or in plain English, Darwin was sometimes wrong, but rather than admit that, his followers make excuses and pretend the matter is simply semantics and details. As to your false claim that religion does not expand on or refine ideas, that lies is disproven by simple consideration of the Reformation, not to mention the institutions of hospitals and free schools, something religion is predominantly responsible for bringing into being, and a clear expansion of the original mandate to carry the faith to the ends of the Earth.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist:

"Acceptance of reality has replaced mythology for some."

Actually, your statement merely shows you have replaced one mythology for another. Perhaps you do not know what 'mythology' means?

My definitions of reality and mythology come straight out of a dictionary, as opposed to your Bible.
I'll stick with evidence based reality, as opposed to ancient superstitious writings of primitive people who were prone to belief in myths.

"I don't know anyone who falls on their knee praying to Darwin, nor do I know anyone who believes Darwin had all the answers. He was just the first to recognize what he observed and conceptualize as evolving change in species."

Or rephrased, you ignore the blind trust some people put in Darwin's theories, taking them as truth even where they are incomplete or sometimes wrong. The 'evolving change' phrase also applies to the convenient excuses in interpretation to insist Darwin was right. The devotion to Darwin as a religion is apparent in the use of his name to validate supposition and guesswork.

You miss the whole concept of science. Science doesn't place blind trust in anyone or any idea. Science tests and tries to prove hypotheses wrong. Only when they are proven to be repeatable/reliable through testing, and observation are they accepted. That's why when we want to travel somewhere through the air, we board an aircraft that has been designed with proven scientific principles to fly, as opposed to jumping off a rooftop, and expecting angels to transport us.

"Research has expanded upon and refined his original ideas. Something, religion doesn't permit."

Or in plain English, Darwin was sometimes wrong, but rather than admit that, his followers make excuses and pretend the matter is simply semantics and details. As to your false claim that religion does not expand on or refine ideas, that lies is disproven by simple consideration of the Reformation, not to mention the institutions of hospitals and free schools, something religion is predominantly responsible for bringing into being, and a clear expansion of the original mandate to carry the faith to the ends of the Earth.

You mischaracterize most of everything I say. Some good things have been done in the name of religion, along with some atrocities. The Church disputes your claims about the Reformation. The Reformation arose out of heresy according to the Church. The Church doesn't believe in changing doctrine (refining or expanding ideas). Religion is full of intolerance of other competing beliefs. You need look no further than the Middle East, or the Reformation for that matter.

---