Do you suppose that technology has a limit?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Will there be a moment, like many Sci-fic movies have
already predicted, when ironically, robots that were
initially created for our benefit suddenly feel the
need to spread their own wings? or a nuclear war
that leaves a few roaches behind?

"SOME" of our technological advances are similar to a hand pointing
the pointer finger(of course), forward exceeding every expectation,
with the thumb pointing backward, lodged in the eye.

Are we our own Gods?
And if you think so, fine but, don't you
think we should implement some self restricting
limits to secure our own existence or is that too great
a sacrifice in consideration of the next frontier?

I think we will find our limits whether "we" impose them or not.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,269 • Replies: 34

No top replies

IMO, robots will never "feel" anything because emotions are a product of biochemical reactions as well as neural circuitry. Responses can be programmed, actual feelings can't.

I would not be surprised if a few nuclear weapons are used someday, but a lot of species other than roaches would survive. Probably even us. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, nuclear testing, and Chernobyl certainly had some effects on life but nowhere near killing everything in sight. Nuclear winter would probably be harder on most species than the fallout.

I would like to think of myself as a Goddess but lack omnipotence (and other omnis). If you believe in the God of the Bible there is no reason to worry about the future or limit our consumption of non-renewable resources since the earth will be destroyed soon anyway.

Fortunately for future generations, many people discount Revelation and have begun to restrict ourselves: non-proliferations treaties, environmental protection, the Kyoto Protocol, moral constraints on scientific research, etc. Will we do enough before it's too late? Probably not.

0 Replies

Sure we're our own gods. Self restricting limits? Some people will get restricted more than others. That alone is intolerable, but the people getting told when to quit will be just the kind that the people dishing it out would do well not to mess with.

I think we're immature as a society, and letting the throne room become a prison. On one hand you got people getting scared, on the other you got people having more free time and control than ever before, and both ways the people in question never get forced to understand themselves, get shielded from trial by fire.

A lot could go wrong. It could turn into 1984. Instead of WWIII, after which we could even expect an improvement in quality of life from before, we could just grow in on ourselves till the planet becomes a termite colony and doom the species forever. I hope it doesn't end that way. Hopefully society will change and we'll find ways to handle our ****.

Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? Absolutely. Damn it anyway. Beats waiting around for the second coming. If we could keep things as they are forever or move ahead according to some plan instead, if this and the machinations of politicians and councils at the reigns of all human innovation is all there will ever be, and if the next new technological breakthrough would take me as its first victim, then let it come. Not because I'm ready to sacrifice myself for the good, I'm not, but because novelty and innovation is the sap of humanity, without it we're the most hideous of animals. I'd rather die the smartest, wickedest, craftiest war monkey I can be than live as a domesticated, castrated parody of that.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

IMO, robots will never "feel" anything because emotions are a product of biochemical reactions as well as neural circuitry. Responses can be programmed, actual feelings can't.

If you believe that artificial intelligence will never progress to the point of natural and responsive emotion then you are naive to say the least.

0 Replies

Alan Turing, Marvin Minsky, and Ray Kurzweil would surely agree that Terry demonstrates lacks foresight or even for that matter much understanding of the present circumstances.

Oh well, ignorance in and of itself, by strict definition, is not necessarily an unrecoverable condition.

Bear in mind I do understand the implications of the logical fallacies called 1) argumentum ad populum and 2) appeal to authority.

I can substantiate my critique of Terry's position if so inclined, however my kindly advice to Terry at this point would be to familiarize himself with Alan Turing, Marvin Minsky, and Ray Kurzweil firstly.

Any-who in answer to the question " Do you suppose that technology has a limit?" the answer is only if the investigations of the natural world have limits; given that technology is the logical application of the investigations of the natural world.

0 Replies

Chumly and jasonrest, I have no doubt that AI will be able to simulate emotional responses. But that doesn't mean that computers or robots will ever be able to "feel" anything, or desire anything. There has to be some kind of consciousness or awareness for emotions to be felt. I don't think that technology can create a true consciousness without a biological basis.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

technology is the logical application of the investigations of the natural world.

So SO True.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

Sure we're our own gods. Self restricting limits? Some people will get restricted more than others. That alone is intolerable, but the people getting told when to quit will be just the kind that the people dishing it out would do well not to mess with.

I think we're immature as a society, and letting the throne room become a prison. On one hand you got people getting scared, on the other you got people having more free time and control than ever before, and both ways the people in question never get forced to understand themselves, get shielded from trial by fire.

A lot could go wrong. It could turn into 1984. Instead of WWIII, after which we could even expect an improvement in quality of life from before, we could just grow in on ourselves till the planet becomes a termite colony and doom the species forever. I hope it doesn't end that way. Hopefully society will change and we'll find ways to handle our ****.

Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot? Absolutely. Damn it anyway. Beats waiting around for the second coming. If we could keep things as they are forever or move ahead according to some plan instead, if this and the machinations of politicians and councils at the reigns of all human innovation is all there will ever be, and if the next new technological breakthrough would take me as its first victim, then let it come. Not because I'm ready to sacrifice myself for the good, I'm not, but because novelty and innovation is the sap of humanity, without it we're the most hideous of animals. I'd rather die the smartest, wickedest, craftiest war monkey I can be than live as a domesticated, castrated parody of that.

I disagree with your desire to push forward but My respect for your position outweighs that........WELL SAID.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Chumly and jasonrest, I have no doubt that AI will be able to simulate emotional responses. But that doesn't mean that computers or robots will ever be able to "feel" anything, or desire anything. There has to be some kind of consciousness or awareness for emotions to be felt. I don't think that technology can create a true consciousness without a biological basis.

You're playing with semantics.
Again, given time, AI will progress to the point where
they adapt to their surroundings and learn from it the same way
an infant does. In fact they already do that.

They will, if given time, be able to "feel", love, desire, hate and all those other wonderful things that ruin man from time to time.
I enjoy your conversation and envy your naiveness.

0 Replies

Terry,

You lack understanding of the full implications of the Turing Test and thus whether the arguments of subjective versus objective have meaning in this context.

The vehicle (machine / human / cyborg / alien / dog / cat / etc) by which indications of emotional response and/or consciousness is demonstrated has questionable (arguably no) relevance.

Have a look see here at my fun thread called Sex with robots 'not far away'

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Terry,

You lack understanding of the full implications of the Turing Test and thus whether the arguments of subjective versus objective have meaning in this context.

The vehicle (machine / human / cyborg / alien / dog / cat / etc) by which indications of emotional response and/or consciousness is demonstrated has questionable (arguably no) relevance.

Have a look see here at my fun thread called Sex with robots 'not far away'

I saw that author on the colbert report.
Very interesting as well as the thread. I'm going join in on that one.

0 Replies

http://gizmodo.com/346029/scientists-invent-robots-that-lie-real-bender-closer-than-ever

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Chumly and jasonrest, I have no doubt that AI will be able to simulate emotional responses. But that doesn't mean that computers or robots will ever be able to "feel" anything, or desire anything. There has to be some kind of consciousness or awareness for emotions to be felt. I don't think that technology can create a true consciousness without a biological basis.

Technology may eventually be based on organic mechanisms. And even existing biology can be considered mechanical to a certain degree, it simply uses organic chemical systems to make its connections.

Computational evolution is already being use to create new algorithms. The process is currently limited by the density of connections and speeds, but there is nothing inherent in mechanical design to limit that density and the number of connections. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time.

The Singularity Org

0 Replies

Given that limits are such an essential aspect of the human experience, it is difficult for us to imagine anything being truly limitless. Of course this doesn't mean that the infinite doesn't exist, but thus far, through all of mankind's advancement of its knowledge, we have yet to be able to point to anything we believe (other than through faith) is without limit. Certainly this includes any of the technologies we have developed.

If you are asking whether or not mankind should impose limits on technology, I would answer it is reasonable to try to limit certain applications of the technology, even though I'm not confident about its ability to do so.

The technology of nuclear energy is an obvious example where limits on application is to be favored, but it is also an obvious example of the limitations of attempts to control a technology once it is launched.

As for the evolution of machines, I agree with those who contend that true artificial intelligence is not only inevitable, but just around the corner. Authors have written compellingly of AI utopias and dystopias, but I suspect that, as usual, the reality will be somewhere in between.

Personally, I think it is likely that rather that remaining separate and differentiated, we will see the increasing merger of humanity and technology to the point that it will not make much sense to discuss them as distinct entities.

0 Replies

well put.
The fusing of man and machine are inevitable in fact, we
are in the early stages of it at this very moment.

0 Replies

if technology advances any further one country is just going to destroy everything because governments are based off primal urges to control territory.

our technology is limited merely by our ability to control our natural urges.
i dont think robots will ever be able to , uhh, have "free will" per se.
just like us, they will be restricted by their function. we live to procreate, they will be created to do chores.

but who knows, theres always a ghost in the machine, isnt there?

0 Replies

you'll be the one that gets his head smashed by a robot that was...."doing his chores".

0 Replies

The speculation on the potential "free will" of "thinking machines" rests on the very problematical philosophical question of the existence of free will in humans.

0 Replies

Jasonrest, there is a world of difference between a program that can adapt/learn and the ability to "feel" emotions. What would love (or lust) feel like to a sexless machine that does not have a biological urge to find a mate and reproduce? Machines could sense pressure and detect injury, but you need awareness to "feel" pain as we do. There is no way to know if a machine is aware (unless it can answer when you ask it), but no one yet has proposed any realistic way that conscious awareness/experience of qualia could be generated mechanically. We don't even know exactly how human beings do it.

0 Replies

Chumley, I looked at your "Sex with a robot" thread. I cannot imagine how anyone could "love" something they knew was a machine. Some people anthropomorphize machines that they KNOW cannot feel emotions or act deliberately ("loving" your car) and I suppose that someone who did that could project emotions onto a life-like robot. It's probably a guy thing: women want emotional involvement from the one we love. But perhaps we all delude ourselves into believing that our love is reciprocated.

0 Replies

Do you suppose that technology has a limit?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know