Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if material is immaterial?
(08-09-2017, 06:01 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Okay, brick wall defense.  What part of .. "it's not about the science it's about the USE of it" isn't getting across??

The part when you make comments like this:

Nutritional science is a good example of how that good old human fallibility manipulates science to it's own benefit.


As I've said before, science only exists in the minds of the human species


They find new miracle foods, and make new discoveries of how what was good for us last week will kill us the next with alarming regularity.

Your comments are directed at the science, not the marketing, so I can only answer what you've typed. If your beef is with use of science by others, I'm fine with that.

(08-09-2017, 06:01 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Why are scientists still building and researching these kind of AI robots while they scratch their heads over the ethics of doing it?   Why don't they all just clear their desks and stop all progress until there are set guidelines  ... and peer review... in place??

Won't matter what laws you make, someone will break them.

Beware the military-industrial complex. Ike, circa 1948.

(08-09-2017, 06:01 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Another quasi guru on another panel show expressed the view ..paraphrased.  "I don't think anyone would object to robots who could kill all ISIS fighters without the level of collateral damage we see now."   ... seriously??

Never mind Terminator, shouda watched Robocop. ED 209.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
I think they've already got them installed haven't they? Only programmed to shoot blacks? One got outa control and offed a white woman so that one is sure to cause a recall and rejig of the model. Maybe they shouldn't use black robcops? that racist when it's robots?
Well, the gold ones are OK. The silver ones you gotta watch out for.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Ha! I knew there would be colour involved! [Image: happy0009.gif]
Actually, the first robot kill has already happened. One of USA's terrorists last year was closed off somewhere and a robot went and blew him up.

That one was remote controlled, but it's a short step to autonomy.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
That was the Dallas BLM shooter. If you call that a robot kill, you have to include drones, and they've scored plenty of kills now.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
The Dallas shooter was the first by cops.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
At the risk of pissing everyone off again, allow an elaboration of the analogy I propose between science and religion:

(Keeping in mind, please, that I'm no defender of religion and am a huge fan of science. This is a philosophical problem.)

Sparks says "Religion has no self-correcting mechanism."
That isn't actually true. The Roman Catholics no longer burn heretics at the stake. Even the Mormons have made adjustments to deal with their more overt racism and sexism. Polygamy is out, and blacks can have full rights of the priesthood. In a few more centuries, even Islam could make reforms regarding female rights and Jihadist sensibilities.

Yes, the method and its peer review does tend to root out the blunders...but that process is often too slow to reverse the damage done.
Science often settles for a partial truth...and sometimes has no access to larger truths that may evade its methodology...perhaps forever.
Science has no access to consciousness or any explanation for what it is...even though consciousness is perhaps the most important feature of existence.

There are phenomena that may have multiple truths...yet, the method and the evidence might allow us to settle for one and only one.
Quantum mechanics is slowly evolving the way we approach evidence...but it is a very slow and costly effort. We may never be able to access certain aspects of the nature of the universe via the scientific approach.

What if there are other possible approaches? How would we know if the method simply deems that which leaves no evidence as being non-existent?

Up until very recently, science had no access to some of the most fundamental underlying features of the nature of reality; i.e., the quantum strangeness. Now, we can accept that a particle can have duality; that it can 'tunnel'; that it can have entanglement and behave in ways that were previously unimaginable. Still, we can't really explain gravity or even energy. We may eventually gain access to those missing pieces of knowledge via this method...

But, extrapolating on that, is it unimaginable that some aspects of reality will simply defy the method?
How would we be able to access a particle that was conscious, for instance, and also contrarian?
How would we find evidence for a particle that simply disliked being investigated, or was rascally and bent on providing misleading data?

Quantum mechanics has aspects that are inching that way; i.e.; that the act of measuring can determine the nature of something that was previously indeterminate. We can't observe objectively at the tiny scale. Our observation has an effect on the data. A huge effect.

At some point, there may be nothing left to learn from evidence...though, there may well be much more to experience.

The amazing effort to uncover the Higgs-Boson is right at the edge of what is possible through our efforts.
Should other fundamental missing bits require a million times more energy to detect, well, we won't be able to detect them.
They will only be accessible through theory and imagination. Or possibly, via raw consciousness itself.

Yet, to assume that a phenomena that leaves no evidence can't exist is somewhat pushy. That would be religious type thinking.
Come full circle.


I shall now accept my beating like a man.

(name calling seems a bit immature, though i can certainly handle it if you must.)
Here's another way to describe the point:

We don't know what consciousness is. Or what causes it.
To hypothesize that our perception of this reality is just that; a perception, is not an impossibility.
Within this dimensional state of awareness, there are some hard and fast rules...and they are true. They are real.

But what if there are other distinct states of awareness that we can perceive, via an altering of consciousness, that are also real, in the same way this is? Scientifically, this isn't proven false. It simply can't be perceived from this state.
And because it is made of a different configuration of the bits, they can't be brought back here to examine...because here, they are in this configuration.

However, in the alternate consciousness, one might happily apply the method to it to learn about it. Maybe we could even build a collider there. But we can't detect it from here.

Plenty of mystics and thinkers and experimenters have, of course, described such things. Actually, plenty of scientists have also described such possibilities. It's not disprovable like some stuff. People don't levitate here, nor do they build free energy devices. Those are violations. The god of science, holding the laws of thermodynamics, waves his finger of disapproval at those frauds.

But does it wags its finger at the idea of alternate realities accessible via manipulation of consciousness?
No. Not really.

Unless it's a jealous god and doesn't allow other perceptual realities that are every bit as real as this one.
Wouldn't it suck if a person's devotion to science somehow was limited to this one and only universe, to the point of not allowing another one, and it turns out there is one (or more)?

That would be a religious level of science.

Of course, if there aren't alternate perceptual possibilities, and if consciousness can only exist in this particular configuration of the bits, then, no harm done.

But there are no laws that prevent all these particles from also expressing a different configuration. Same particles. same laws, even.
separate reality.

Yet, to the religiously scientific, such a notion is absurd and repugnant.
But it isn't unscientific.
Maybe Sparks has to write this kind of philosopharting off because dumbasses like me kind of 'get' you. It must follow, using scientific method, that if the uncredentialed and unititiated 'kind of gets' it then it must be hogwash.

So I'd better just shut up and watch from the sidelines like stupid women should. ... just stirrin' Sparky, I'm pretty damned hard to offend really, but I reserve the right to use it as ammo at a later date... 'cos that's how girls do arguments. [Image: happy0148.gif]
I'm sure there is a scientific method to prove that.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)